Women

Harvesting_African Sandalwood_Kenya

Emma_Hemmerle — Fri, 07 Jan 2022 11:26:20 +0000

Harvesting_African Sandalwood_Kenya Emma_Hemmerle Fri, 01/07/2022 - 11:26

Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Fri, 01/07/2022 - 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

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

Socio – Economic Benefits and the Associated Environmental Degradation Effects of Osyris lanceolata (Hochst & Steudel) Utilization in Kitui County, Kenya

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

Formal international protection in place

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Population Trend

Decreasing

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Osyris lanceolata

Common Name(s)

African Sandalwood

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

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

O. lanceolata is harvested in the wild by uprooting the whole tree including its roots because the essential oil concentration is higher in the roots than the trunk. It is reported that the harvesting methods used are highly destructive since the whole plant needs to be uprooted to get the roots, leading to a serious depletion of its populations. Majority of the respondents 64% reported that it was a taboo to use O. lanceolata for firewood against 36% who reported otherwise.

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

Additional Details (if available)

The main purpose of harvesting O. lanceolata was mainly for commercial use (44.2%), with little use for domestic purposes (16.7%).

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

Medicine/Pharmaceutical (human/veterinary)

Cultural or religious practices

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

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

Unknown/Not Recorded

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

In Kitui County, incidences of illegal poaching of O. lanceolata have been reported for the last three years due to the demand of the plant as raw material for the manufacturing companies.

Geographic Location

Sub-Saharan Africa

Country

Kenya

Sub region/state

Kitui County

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

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

National / local 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

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

Yes, considered unsustainable

Additional Details (if available)

Majority of the respondents (55%) reported that the major environmental degradation consequences caused by over – exploitation of O. lanceolata plant materials was increased soil erosion. This was followed by the drop in crop production (29.2%), lack of fodder for livestock (8.3%) and diminishing of water resources (7.5%)
During the study, it was found that the main environmental degradation effect associated with unsustainable harvesting of O. lanceolata was degradation of water catchment areas. This in turn has caused increased surface run – off, flash flooding, reduced infiltration and increased soil erosion and siltation of the existing water harvesting structures. This was confirmed by Kieti et al, (2016) who reported that once watershed and catchment ecosystems are interfered with, they cease to supply essential ecological goods and services.

Details of assessment carried out

The study concluded that socio-economic benefits associated with O. lanceolata are contributing to its over-exploitation from the wild, thus calling for multi- faceted interventions to minimize loss of this invaluable plant species from the wild.

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

The East African sandalwood is among the sandalwoods known for producing fragrance-scented wood and a world-famous essential oil used in various cosmetics and fragrance industries and has gained popularity also in medicine industries

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Details of assessment

many socio-economic impacts provided to local communities, especially in the form of income. The major beneficiaries in the entire value chain were the manufacturers, middlemen and traders.

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

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Absent

High financial returns from use

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Capacity building of community

Absent

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Some use is legal and some is illegal

Source Reference(s)

Mutisya, M., Mwinzi, M., & Patrick, K. (2022). Socio – Economic Benefits and the Associated Environmental Degradation Effects of Osyris lanceolata (Hochst & Steudel) Utilization in Kitui County, Kenya.

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Women

Additional details of specific groups

More males were aware and involved in O. lanceolata utilization than females

How are local community members involved?

The major beneficiaries of O. lanceolata business were the manufacturers (45%) followed by the middlemen (30%). The local harvesters only benefited by 17.5% while the transporters benefited by 5.8% (Figure 4).

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

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

No assessment recorded

Yes, considered unsustainable

Country reference

Kenya

Tropy Hunting_Asiatic Ibex_Tajikistan

Emma_Hemmerle — Sun, 02 Jan 2022 11:22:37 +0000

Tropy Hunting_Asiatic Ibex_Tajikistan Emma_Hemmerle Sun, 01/02/2022 - 11:22

Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 12/29/2021 - 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

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

Asiatic Ibex and Markhor Trophy Hunting in community-managed conservancies in Tajikistan.

Decreasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Capra sibirica

Common Name(s)

Asiatic Ibex

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?

Hunting and/or Trapping of live Terrestrial and Aerial Animals

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Basic subsistence (meeting day to day essential needs)

Population/area management

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

Speciment collecting, including hunting/fishing trophies

Amount

7.00

Units Of Measurement

hunts on average

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?

Increasing

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

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Geographic Location

West and Central Asia

Country

Tajikistan

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

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

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

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

local people manage the conservancies and hunters take part in the hunts, for which they pay.

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

Yes

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

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

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?

Yes, positive (use is helping combat poaching or illegal wildlife trade)

community-based management has led to an increase in ibex populations

the initiative is thought to have reduced the occurrence of poaching.

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 positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)

Yes, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

community-based management has led to an increase in ibex populations, as well as their top predator, the snow leopard.

Additional Details (if available)

lower livestock densities and more sustainable grazing due to recognition of wildlife benefits.

Details of assessment carried out

Through the increase of population sizes, the wider conservation benefits, and the livelihood benefits provided to community members.

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

provision of food for vulnerable families from hunt revenues

provision of fuel for vulnerable families from hunt revenues. electrification.

support of old and sick people from hunt revenues.

development of better equipped and functioning schools. For example, this year the Parcham ibex conservancy organization, in the Ravvmeddara valley, repaired the village school and equipped it with heating and electricity.

Rangers have gained skills through training and capacity building in areas such as wildlife monitoring, wildlife biology, English language, conversation skills, taxidermy, and leading hunts, as well as minor skills such as camping, working with GPS, compass and maps, and using walkie-talkies. Other community members have gained skills in tourism and financial management, accountancy, cooking, and so forth.

Other Socio-Economic Impacts

Positive impact in terms of infrastructure for the community such as roads, bridges, and the development of microcredit schemes

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

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

Yes, recorded as positive

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

providing funds for sick people

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Present

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Present

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Absent

High financial returns from use

Present

Abundant population of target species

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Capacity building of community

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2019) CITES and Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Ibex and Markhor trophy hunting in Tajikistan.

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Women

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

The employment and empowerment of women in wildlife conservation is increasing, and the number of female rangers (currently 5) is slowly growing.
Women are also involved in hunting tourism as homestay owners, cooks, handicraft makers and even tourist and hunting guides.

How many of these are from where the species is being used/extracted?

300

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

Yes

Scale of Assessment

National Level

Secondary Species

Capra falconeri

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Near Threatened (NT)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Country reference

Tajikistan

Harvesting_Cape aloe_South Africa

Emma_Hemmerle — Thu, 23 Dec 2021 08:39:03 +0000

Harvesting_Cape aloe_South Africa Emma_Hemmerle Thu, 12/23/2021 - 08:39

Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Thu, 12/23/2021 - 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

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

Cape aloe (South Africa’s most heavily wild-harvested and commercially traded indigenous plant) harvesting and trade in South Africa

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Yes

Population Status

Common but only within narrow areas of distribution

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Population Trend

Unknown/not recorded

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Aloe ferox

Common Name(s)

Cape aloe

Bitter aloe

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

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

The main product is the yellow aloin-rich bitter juice (commonly known as sap) from the leaves; this is used to make Aloe bitters, widely considered to have laxative, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-arthritic, antimicrobial and anti-cancer properties. Other products include increasingly popular cosmetic products made of gel extracted from the white inner flesh of the leaf, which is rich in minerals, vitamins, amino acids, polysaccharides, enzymes and lipids.

How is the primary use carried out?

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

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

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

Medicine/Pharmaceutical (human/veterinary)

Amount

400.00

Units Of Measurement

tons of dried leaf exudate

Time period over which this has been recorded

1996

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?

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Geographic Location

Sub-Saharan Africa

Country

South Africa

Sub region/state

Cape

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

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

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

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

At the country level, South Africa’s Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) carried out a resource assessment on A. ferox in 2014. The assessment indicated that current harvesting levels do not seem to have impacted significantly on the occurrence of Aloe ferox within its predicted range. The species remains common and abundant throughout its very extensive distribution range, and occurs in some places at very high densities.
The DEFF further conducted a non-detriment finding (NDF) in 2018, finding that the harvest and international trade in A. ferox is non-detrimental and poses a low to moderate risk to the population in the wild.

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, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

mention of habitat retention benefits due to the harvesting of cape aloe.

Details of assessment carried out

The DEFF further conducted a non-detriment finding (NDF) in 2018, finding that the harvest and international trade in A. ferox is non-detrimental and poses a low to moderate risk to the population in the wild.

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

Income from tapping is used for basic household needs including school fees and school supplies.

Additionally, trade can contribute to broader livelihood and development outcomes, including building community networks, skills and capacities, and strengthening land tenure, resource access, species management and local enterprise development.

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

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

Present

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Absent

High financial returns from use

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Capacity building of community

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Other Factors

Trade of wild Aloe ferox provides important livelihood benefits, particularly income and continuation of traditional knowledge and practices, to some of South Africa’s poorest rural people. The livelihood benefits appear to provide incentives for sustainable use and conservation, and the harvest is not currently leading to any significant decline or threatening the species with extinction, although there is some localised depletion requiring strengthened harvest practices.

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2019) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Cape aloe harvesting and trade in South Africa.

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Unknown/Not Recorded

Women

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

Women are disproportionately represented among aloe tappers, particularly in the Eastern Cape where most tappers are women.

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

Yes

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Country reference

South Africa

Harvest/ranching_Yellow-spotted River Turtle_Peru

Emma_Hemmerle — Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:46:18 +0000

Harvest/ranching_Yellow-spotted River Turtle_Peru Emma_Hemmerle Wed, 12/22/2021 - 15:46

Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species sourced from the wild but reared/cultivated in a managed site (e.g., cultivated wild specimens, eggs/juveniles from the wild)

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

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

Record Source

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

In Peru, Taricaya (Yellow-spotted River Turtle in Peru) is harvested through a pioneering sustainable use ranching programme aimed at promoting conservation of the wild population while also delivering social benefits and conservation incentives for local communities

Stable

Is the species endemic HIDE

Unknown

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Population Trend

Variable

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Podocnemis unifilis

Common Name(s)

Yellow-spotted River Turtle

Taricaya

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?

Targeted fishing harvesting/exploiting or collecting wild aquatic resources

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

Cultural/spiritual

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)

Conservation Management (translocation, restoration, ex-situ breeding)

Amount

700000.00

Units Of Measurement

Turtles

Time period over which this has been recorded

2017

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?

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Geographic Location

South America

Country

Peru

Sub region/state

Amazon

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

International private sector

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

Yes

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

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

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?

Yes, positive (use is helping combat poaching or illegal wildlife trade)

The ranching programme has driven progressive increases in the yellow-spotted Amazon river turtle population, as indicated by nest counts. In one of the managed basins, Reserva Pacaya Samiria, for example, there were five times as many nests in 2017 as in the first year of monitoring (2012)

The ranching programme has reduced poaching and illegal trade, due to the management groups formed by the communities and their surveillance and monitoring of the nesting beaches.

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 positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)

Unknown/not recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

surveillance and monitoring not only supports the conservation not only of Taricaya, but also other species subject to illegal harvest and trafficking.

Details of assessment carried out

non detriment findings were carried out in order to make sure that the management of the species was sustainable.

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

The Amazonian indigenous communities have also gained technical assistance to strengthen the management and sustainable management of the Taricaya, building their management capacities.

Finally, as part of the communities’ monitoring and care of the beaches, the security threat posed by intrusions by poachers and traffickers has been reduced.

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

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

Present

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Present

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Present

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Present

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Present

High financial returns from use

Present

Abundant population of target species

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Capacity building of community

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2019) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Harvest and ranching of Yellow-spotted River Turtle in Peru.

In Peru, Taricaya is harvested through a pioneering sustainable use ranching programme aimed at promoting conservation of the wild population while also delivering social benefits and conservation incentives for local communities.

How many people or households are involved in the use?

1000

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Unknown/Not Recorded

Women

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

The activities of egg harvesting, re-nesting and turtle care fall mainly on the women of the communities, who play a key role in the management of the species and the success of the ranching programme.

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

Yes

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Vulnerable (VU)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Year

2017

Amount

$741738.00

Country reference

Peru

Harvest/ranching_Nile Crocodiles_Kenya

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:12:20 +0000

Harvest/ranching_Nile Crocodiles_Kenya Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 12/20/2021 - 17:12

Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Mon, 12/20/2021 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species sourced from the wild but reared/cultivated in a managed site (e.g., cultivated wild specimens, eggs/juveniles from the wild)

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

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

Record Source

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

Egg collection from the wild and ranching of crocodiles for the sale of meat, skin, and other body parts, under regulated management.

Stable

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Population Trend

Variable

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Crocodylus niloticus

Common Name(s)

Nile crocodile

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

crocodile skins are used for luxury goods, meats are used for food, etc.

How is the primary use carried out?

Ranching, farming or cultivation or wild species

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

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

Food for People

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

Amount

13000.00

Units Of Measurement

eggs

Time period over which this has been recorded

2018

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

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

Unknown/Not Recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Kenya made a successful proposal to transfer its population of C. niloticus from Appendix I to Appendix II for ranching purposes. No indication of how often this is complied with, however.

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

In the Tana River County, in the Kenyan Coastal region, a crocodile ‘ranching” programme has been established.

Geographic Location

Sub-Saharan Africa

Country

Kenya

Sub region/state

Tana River County

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

National / local private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

Community members collect eggs and sell them to one of three companies that hatch and rear them. Other community members are employed in crocodile ranches and mostly work as hatchling attendants in addition to other office functions.

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

Yes

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?

Yes, positive (use is helping combat poaching or illegal wildlife trade)

Before the ranching programme, communities gained no benefits from crocodiles – only danger and harm. Poisoning and retaliatory killing of crocodiles were therefore well known. This limited and regulated harvest incentivizes people to tolerate and support crocodile populations rather than killing them in retaliation for human-wildlife conflict – there is now little or no poisoning of crocodiles in this area.

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, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)

No assessment has been recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Increased use of alternative livelihood options (i.e. other than crocodile ranching) – livestock and agriculture – would result in increased use of river resources in this scarce water country, and increased pollution.

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

Crocodile enterprises have boosted food and health care. One crocodile farm (Kazuri London Crocodile Farm) has partnered with World Food Bank, an NGO. After slaughtering the crocodiles, they donate the meat to the NGO, which processes it as packed lunches and gives it for free to students in schools. The maternity clinic is a key asset.

Physical capital has been built through companies providing a range of important assets and facilities to the communities, including a solar lights

Physical capital has been built through companies providing a range of important assets and facilities to the communities, including a maternity clinic

Communities have also benefited individually in terms of skills and capacities, through training of egg collectors in collection methods that increase hatchability, in animal husbandry, in management, and/or customer service. Some employees have been sponsored by the farms to attend conferences to learn relevant approaches.

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

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

Yes, recorded as positive

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

Previously, women often used to die during delivery or on the way to hospital which was very far away. Once the clinic was built, with funds from the crocodile
companies, the county government then established a dispensary and employed medical practitioners. The facility has incorporated the use of traditional birth attendants, takes women for delivery to hospital, and offers follows-ups on the babies and mothers after delivery. It has employed additional support staff from the local community. This clinic now delivers 10-15 babies per month, sees 40-60 patients in the antenatal clinic per month, sees 20-30 outpatients per day, and carries out pre-referral treatment for emergency cases.

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

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Absent

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Absent

High financial returns from use

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Absent

Capacity building of community

Absent

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Absent

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2019) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Harvest and ranching of Nile crocodiles in Kenya.

In the Tana River County, in the Kenyan Coastal region, a crocodile ‘ranching” programme has been established. This is a crocodile conflict hotspot, and the ranching programme was established to help reduce conflict

How many people or households are involved in the use?

100

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Unknown/Not Recorded

Women

How are local community members involved?

Income is one of the most important benefits and motivations for the community. One hundred egg collectors are employed by the three crocodile farming companies, in a region that has very few other employment options

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

While women are not involved in egg collection, they are engaged in other areas and account for 15% of the Nile Crocodile Limited Ranch workforce, 16% in Galaxy Crocodile Farm Co. Ltd and almost 50% of the permanent staff in the Kazuri London Crocodile Farm.

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

Yes

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Amount

$0.40

Country reference

Kenya

Harvest_Pirarucu_Brazilian Amazon

Emma_Hemmerle — Mon, 20 Dec 2021 09:51:30 +0000

Harvest_Pirarucu_Brazilian Amazon Emma_Hemmerle Mon, 12/20/2021 - 09:51

Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Fri, 12/17/2021 - 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

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

Harvest and trade of Pirarucu in the Brazilian Amazon: setting up of sustainable fishing quotas as a response to depletion of this freshwater resource.

Unknown/not recorded

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common and wildly distributed

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Formal national protection in place

Brazil has adopted a pioneering approach to pirarucu management based on supporting community rights to establish rules about access, to exclude other users from protected lakes, to monitor pirarucu populations, and to fish the species under government-ap

Ban of all exploitation of Pirarucu in the state of brazilian Amazonas in 1996, but enforcement ability was very low.

Population Trend

Increasing

Sub-national Level

Formal sub-national protection in place

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Arapaima gigas

Common Name(s)

Pirarucu

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

Pirarucu provides a variety of products, with the meat, the skin, the scales and the tongue all commercialized.

How is the primary use carried out?

Targeted fishing harvesting/exploiting or collecting wild aquatic resources

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?

Food for animals (including aquaculture)

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

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

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

Over the last 20 years, Brazil has adopted a pioneering approach to pirarucu management based on supporting community rights to establish rules about access, to exclude other users from protected lakes, to monitor pirarucu populations, and to fish the species under government-approved quotas.

Geographic Location

South America

Country

Brazil

Sub region/state

Amazonas

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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?

Yes

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

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

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?

Yes, positive (use is helping combat poaching or illegal wildlife trade)

Community-based management of pirarucu, based on sustainable harvest and trade, is an outstanding conservation success story. Widespread and rapid recoveries of pirarucu have taken place in areas with community management in place

Further, the establishment of the community management programme has led to previously illegal fishers abandoning illegal practices and cooperating with the pirarucu management programme.

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 positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)

Unknown/not recorded

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

The conservation benefits of community-based pirarucu management go well beyond the species itself. Conserving this top predator has knock-on impacts for the health of river ecosystems generally, and has led to increases in biodiversity, including other species of fish that are also used by local communities.

Details of assessment carried out

evidence of Pirarucu population size increase in six different community-managed areas

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

Key livelihood benefits for rural communities from involvement in management and trade of pirarucu are food security and income. Food security has been improved through the widespread recovery of pirarucu stocks, and the opening up of avenues to legally harvest them. (Before establishment of community-based management, communities could not legally harvest pirarucu for food.)

Trade in pirarucu products generates critically needed income and provides the main means of the communities to meet their non-food needs, such as medicine and school expenses.
Pirarucu sales also generate emergency funds, which can be used to meet urgent emergency needs of travel and medical care at urban centers in the case of serious illness or accidents.

Trade in pirarucu products generates critically needed income and provides the main means of the communities to meet their non-food needs, such as medicine and school expenses.
Community-based management has also strengthened traditional knowledge and its passing on to younger generations. Management has also brought dignity to the members of the community, since it allowed them to legally trade the fish with authorization from IBAMA.

fishers’ specialized skills, acquired through years of experience in fishing, was key to establishing a monitoring methodology to enable monitoring of the resource and establishment of sustainable quotas.

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

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

Yes, recorded as positive

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

Trade in pirarucu products generates critically needed income and provides the main means of the communities to meet their non-food needs, such as medicine and school expenses.
Community-based management has also strengthened traditional knowledge and its passing on to younger generations. Management has also brought dignity to the members of the community, since it allowed them to legally trade the fish with authorization from IBAMA.

Unknown/not recorded

Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management

Present

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Present

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Absent

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Present

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Present

High financial returns from use

Present

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Capacity building of community

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Present

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2019) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Harvest and trade of pirarucu in the Brazilian Amazon.

By the 1980s, widespread declines and local extinctions were apparent. Overexploitation was primarily due to large-scale commercial, relatively unselective fishing boats, which often traveled far afield to exploit unprotected lakes.

How many people or households are involved in the use?

5010

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Unknown/Not Recorded

Women

How are local community members involved?

involved in the monitoring, setting of quotas, and harvesing of pirarucu.

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

Women are involved in pirarucu management in terms of collecting and recording biological and biometric data, and handling fish for cleaning and cooling.

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

Yes

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Data Deficient (DD)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate

Yearly Financial Flows

Country reference

Brazil

Harvest_Vicuña_Bolivia

Emma_Hemmerle — Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:22:51 +0000

Harvest_Vicuña_Bolivia Emma_Hemmerle Fri, 12/17/2021 - 11:22

Tue, 01/01/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Fri, 12/17/2021 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species sourced from the wild but reared/cultivated in a managed site (e.g., cultivated wild specimens, eggs/juveniles from the wild)

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

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

Record Source

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

Harvest of Vicuña fibre for trade in Bolivian highlands since 2006.

Increasing

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Unknown/not recorded

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Population Trend

Increasing

Sub-national Level

Unknown/not recorded

Additional Details (if available)

Biological resource use

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Vicugna vicugna

Common Name(s)

Vicuña

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

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

the Vicuña are typically sheared for their fibre, before being released back into the wild.

How is the primary use carried out?

Collecting or harvesting parts or products from wild animals (e.g., eggs, wild honey, vicuna fibre)

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

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

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

Amount

1250.00

Units Of Measurement

kg of fibre

Time period over which this has been recorded

2018

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

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Provide Details of resource rights regime where relevant

In 1969, Peru and Bolivia agreed to ban all hunting and sale of vicuña for a period of ten years. Later they and other range states agreed the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Vicuna (the Vicuna Convention; 1979), which provides in Article I for use of the species “for the benefit of the Andean people”.

Geographic Location

South America

Country

Bolivia

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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?

Yes

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

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

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?

Yes, positive (use is helping combat poaching or illegal wildlife trade)

populations have increased dramatically since this approach was first initiated (Fig 1). At a finer scale, population surveys available for community- managed areas over the last decade indicates that in most, populations continue to increase, although populations have slightly declined over this period in several (see Fig 2), due possibly to poaching, climatic factors, or stochastic fluctuations in generally stable populations.

Vicuñas have become an economic asset to local communities, rather than only a competitor for pasture with their livestock, motivating communities to carry out anti-poaching and protection activities.

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 positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)

Yes, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

There are broader habitat conservation benefits (including for some sensitive habitats such a peatland), and benefits for other flora and fauna.

Additional Details (if available)

There are broader habitat conservation benefits (including for some sensitive habitats such a peatland), and benefits for other flora and fauna.

Details of assessment carried out

use is described as "sustainable" several times in the record.

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

Yes

Contribution to GDP

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

Income from sale of vicuña fibre is distributed according as follows:
 8% royalty payment to the government;
 3% payment of tax on profits;
 3% operational costs of marketing to ACOFIVB;
 85% to benefit families in the communities.

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Taking part in management and sustainable use of vicuna has also led to revitalisation of ancient traditions and local knowledge.

While the government officially owns vicuña, local communities have been given the legal right to use wild vicuna for shearing the fibre.

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

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

Present

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Present

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Present

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Present

Support from NGOs

Present

Support from Government

Present

High financial returns from use

Absent

Abundant population of target species

Absent

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Capacity building of community

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Present

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Absent

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Other Factors

There is no processing capacity in Bolivia – fibre is exported either to Argentina for processing (and then to Italy) or directly to Italy. Development of local processing might increase the economic returns to local communities.

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2009) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Harvest and trade of Vicuña fibre in Bolivia.

Vicuña populations were decimated in the middle decades of the twentieth century, suffering uncontrolled and indiscriminate exploitation for trade in fibre. There were no clear user rights at this time, so the population was effectively treated as an open-access resource.
In 1969, Peru and Bolivia agreed to ban all hunting and sale of vicuña for a period of ten years. Later they and other range states agreed the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Vicuna (the Vicuna Convention; 1979), which provides in Article I for use of the species “for the benefit of the Andean people”.

How many people or households are involved in the use?

9442

Who is involved in the use?

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Unknown/not recorded

Women participate actively in every stage of the process, and in planning and coordination.

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

Yes

Scale of Assessment

National Level

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Moderately Depleted

Yearly Financial Flows

Year

2016

Amount

$2300000.00

Country reference

Bolivia

Harvesting_Saltwater Crocodile_Northern Australia

Emma_Hemmerle — Fri, 17 Dec 2021 10:12:40 +0000

Harvesting_Saltwater Crocodile_Northern Australia Emma_Hemmerle Fri, 12/17/2021 - 10:12

Thu, 10/31/2019 - 12:00

Affiliation

IIED

Date Of Record Entry

Wed, 12/15/2021 - 12:00

Type of wild species covered by the record

Wild species sourced from the wild but reared/cultivated in a managed site (e.g., cultivated wild specimens, eggs/juveniles from the wild)

Wild species born/bred and raised/produced in captivity or through artificial propagation (e.g., activities such as closed-cycle breeding, horticulture or aquaculture)

Stage of the value chain covered by the record

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

Record Source

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

Legal and sustainable harvesting and ranching of Corodylus porosus in Norther Australia, mainly for use in fashion industry.

Stable

Is the species endemic HIDE

Population Status

Common but only within narrow areas of distribution

Formal international protection in place

International Level

CITES listing

National Level

Unknown/not recorded

Listed as Vulnerable by the Australian State of Queensland

Additional Details (if available)

but according to the paper, harvesting is not actually a threat, at least not anymore, as it is carried out following strict regulations and guidelines, and population sizes have actually been increasing for the past 40 years.

Population Trend

Increasing

Sub-national Level

Formal sub-national protection in place

Additional Details (if available)

Human-crocodile conflict is also an important component, with crocodiles sometimes attacking cattle, and otherwise compete for resources.

Name

Emma Hemmerlé

Scientific Name

Crocodylus porosus

Common Name(s)

Saltwater crocodile

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

Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)

Details of parts/products taken

The crocodiles are mostly harvested for their skin and meat primarily, as well as for other products such as skulls as souvenirs, feet as backscratchers, etc.

How is the primary use carried out?

Ranching, farming or cultivation or wild species

Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?

Unknown/not recorded

Purpose of Use

Income generation from trade at individual or household or community

Cultural/spiritual

Additional Details (if available)

Saltwater crocodiles are recognized as a valuable commercial resource, generating income and employment to local communities, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. The economic value of the crocodile farming industry to the NT as a whole has been estimated to be AUD $107,000,000 per year (approximately USD 74,600,000). Involvement in the crocodile harvest and management builds on and strengthens cultural and traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous people, enabling them to stay “on country” and use traditional skills rather than needing to move to urban areas for jobs.

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

Ornamentation, decoration and apparel

Amount

90000.00

Units Of Measurement

eggs

Time period over which this has been recorded

Quota applied for harvesting in the year 2019

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

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

Yes, formal (e.g., quotas, viewing or catch-size limits) and complied with

Additional Details (if available)

The North Territories Government sets quotas and issues permits to crocodile harvesters and farmers.

Geographic Location

Oceania

Country

Australia

Sub region/state

Northern Territories

Is the site legally/formally protected?

Unknown/not recorded

Ownership

Unknown/Not Recorded

Management

Unknown/Not Recorded

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

National / local government

International private sector

If more than one box ticked, please provide more details

local people are involved in harvesting, ranching, and production, while the local government is responsible for regulations, and international private sector is the destination for the majority of the primary products produced.

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

Yes

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

Yes – use is improving the status (e.g., population is increasing or stabilising, extraction effort OR catch per unit effort is decreasing or stable)

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

Wild crocodile populations have steadily increased in the NT under sustainable harvesting. Extensive wetlands are now highly valued and protected by landowners to ensure an annual supply of eggs. This motivates not only habitat retention, but active habitat management for crocodiles through means such as control of feral pigs and invasive plants that damage wetland habitats. Further, the involvement of Indigenous ranger groups in harvest programs, as both harvesters and regulators, has built and strengthened community-based wildlife management on Aboriginal lands.

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 positive effect (e.g., reduced competition, reduced risk of hybridization)

Yes, positive (e.g., it increases / retains land area for conservation)

Yes, considered sustainable

Additional Details (if available)

Extensive wetlands are now highly valued and protected by landowners to ensure an annual supply of eggs. This motivates not only habitat retention, but active habitat management for crocodiles through means such as control of feral pigs and invasive plants that damage wetland habitats.

Additional Details (if available)

Details of assessment carried out

Findings in terms of population sizes: Since the introduction of protection measures and subsequent sustainable use programmes, all populations have recovered significantly.

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

Yes

Contribution to GDP

Unknown/not recorded

Food

Energy

Medicine/healthcare

Education

Training/Skills

Land/Resource Rights

Decision Making

Conflict- people

Conflict- wildlife

Climate Change

Crocodile harvest and the ranching industry also provides local communities with significant opportunities to learn important skills and knowledge on the species and its management.

Involvement in the crocodile harvest and management builds on and strengthens cultural and traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous people, enabling them to stay “on country” and use traditional skills rather than needing to move to urban areas for jobs.

Saltwater crocodiles are dangerous predators, and regularly kill both people and livestock. Without the crocodile industry and the jobs and other social benefits it provides, local communities would be much less tolerant to crocodiles being around human settlements.

Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded

No assessment recorded

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

Present

Supportive policy and legislative framework

Present

Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements

Present

Good alignment of legal protections with local cultural values and traditional

Present

Support from NGOs

Absent

Support from Government

Present

High financial returns from use

Present

Abundant population of target species

Present

Biological characteristics of target species

Present

Capacity building of community

Present

Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan

Present

Effective private sector approach engagement through certification

Present

Good Market Strategies

Absent

Is this use legal or illegal?

Legal under national law

Source Reference(s)

CITES (2019) CITES & Livelihoods Case Study 2019: Saltwater crocodile harvest and ranching in Australia’s Northern Territory.

The Australian populations were severely depleted by uncontrolled hunting during the 1940s to 1960s. The incentives generated by the wild harvest are a key factor in winning public and political tolerance for re-establishment of a large and healthy wild population, and hence a significant contribution to conservation.

Who is involved in the use?

Men

Unknown/Not Recorded

Women

How are local community members involved?

Harvest of crocodiles from the wild in the NT primarily involves collecting wild eggs for ranching (i.e. incubation and rearing in captivity within crocodile farms), with a limited direct harvest of sub- adult/adults. Most crocodiles are slaughtered and processed locally at a specialist abattoir and the skins are exported with CITES tags for further processing overseas

Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles

Yes

Women are involved in most aspects of the harvesting of saltwater crocodiles in Australia. While female egg collectors are uncommon, a substantial number of women (including Aboriginal) work in hatcheries or farms, constituting an estimated 20% of workers. Women are also involved in the processing of captive crocodiles for skins and meat, and in the production and sales of crocodile skin products.

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

Yes

Scale of Assessment

Sub-national

IUCN National Red List Category

Not Evaluated (NE)

IUCN Global Red List Category

Least Concern (LC)

Green Status Global Category

Indeterminate