Madagascar

[hep20]

Hi Everyone, I'd like to introduce myself, I'm an MSc student of International Wildlife Trade and Conservation at the Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology. I have just returned from a month long trip to Madagascar where I have been interviewing chameleon exporters and looking at ways of making the chameleon trade more sustainable and conservation oriented. I am now looking at possible scenarios of what could happen should the current trade restrictions be lifted and more species become available to be legally traded from Madagascar. I would be really keen to hear any opinions you might have on this and also if anyone knows of any species where trade embargos have been lifted as I am drawing a blank on finding these at the moment.

Thank you in advance, I look forward to hearing from you and participating in your forum :0)

 

[draetish]

Welcome to our world! I'm not the one to answer your question but I am so glad you are here.

 

[DGray]

welcome

Welcome to the forum. I hope you will find useful information and good people here.

I'm interested to hear you are at the Durrell Institute; I was an avid reader of Mr. Durrell's books, and supported his zoo for a time.

There is a search funtion on this site and using it I found a few discussions you might find relevant:
https://www.chameleonforums.com/if-there-new-cites-species-quotas-40252/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/chameleon-conservation-26550/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/madagascar-export-quota-10697/
https://www.chameleonforums.com/cites-2008-no-three-horns-11504/

Personally, I have mixed feeling about lifting quotas; I feel there are species that could be harvested in reasonable numbers with little impact overall; I feel that are species that could be "farmed" with good effect; I worry that with rampant corruption in the country, any controls would subverted, and truly endangered species would be further damaged by a lifting or expanding of the quotas.

I will be interested to hear other opinions here.

 

[Kent67]

Very interesting! This is exactly the kind of project I was hoping would eventually happen (I've been taking applied anthropology courses and thinking about it from the other side). I'm not sure if it would qualify as a trade embargo being lifted but many of the more rare species of chameleons from Tanzania are "farmed" and allowed CITES export quotas. The issue with doing the same in Mada seems to be the lack of infrastructure needed to convince CITES that farms there are legitimate breeding facilities and not just holding pens, as most seem to be. What do you think? Also, although I'm not that familiar with the history, weren't most species of poison frogs not exported until they started becoming farmed?

 

[eisentrauti]

@DGray:

Exactly !
It will end up like it's in Tanzania. The person who pays the highest bribes gets the quotas. Nobody controls if the animals are really breed or just caught and kept a week in a cage and then labeled as farm raised.

If there's a way to spread those animals with the small quotas to people who have proved that they have the knowledge it would be perfect.
But, to be honest, I bet on my first thesis. Money rules the world.

And again if it comes someday to this scene we need equal restrictions in the EU and the USA.
It's just a bad joke if a few hundred Uroplatus spec. end up every year in the USA as WCs without any problems and here it's forbidden to import a single specimen.
Those stupid laws are one of the reasons why there are still so many smuggled animals in bad condition in Europe.

 

[james L]

Very small quotas would be great to see with some species, but I feel the quotas are way to high on the 4 Furcifer species that are exported. 2000 of each should be dropped to no more then 500 at most. Panthers are doing well in captivity, theres no reason for so many WC's. As for carpets, we should just lay off those for a couple of years. Just my opinion.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Unfortunately the reason trade has not been resumed in certain species is because the Madagascar CITES Management Authority has failed to satisfy the actions recommended by the CITES Animal Committee and exporters have proven to everyone that they have every intention to break the rules in any way they can. In order for any trade resumption in these species to occur, the Madagascar CITES Management Authority has to be able to convince the Standing Committee of CITES that they are able to effectively manage their own trade and address the actions recommended by the CITES Animal Committee. Anyone not familiar with the situation can read this article: http://www.chameleonnews.com/02SepCarpenter.html

Personally, I would like to see limited quotas imposed on certain species. These species need to be carefully selected to avoid issuing quotas for species that can not be harvested sustainably but there are species that can (ex. C. brevicorne, C. nasutum, etc.). Limited numbers of these species being exported would offset demand for illegal exports which could help bring the idea of monitoring the trade back into reality.

I personally like the example Tanzania has taken. They have a single exporter they have permitted to produce F1 captive-bred specimens of many rare native reptile species, which they then give a limited export quota for (10-404 individuals of each species this year depending on the species). This exporter works closely with scientific researchers and Tanzanian CITES Management Authorities to establish these quotas based on his production of captive-bred babies and the impact of collecting limited numbers of founder specimens.

I have to disagree with Benny (eisentrauti), however, on his interpretation of the Tanzanian method and differences in EU vs. US regulations. First, the exporter in Tanzania has a close working relationship with herpetologists who work on the reptiles of Tanzania and the Tanzanian Management authority. I can personally vouch for the quality difference of the F1 animals this individual ships out compared to WC specimens. Having a single exporter permitted to export bonafide captive-bred specimens is much easier to regulate and monitor than multiple exporters. Additionally, the differences between EU and US regulations has absolutely nothing to do with the Standing Committee of CITES recommendations on importation of chameleons from Madagascar, or the lifting of this ban. The Standing Committee of CITES has not imposed any uneven trade restrictions, it was the EU's CITES Management Authority that chose to impose additional regulations on imports into the EU. That is a discussion that needs to be directed toward the EU's Management Authority and their policy, not toward the US's policy, Madagascar's policy or CITES in general's policy.

Chris

 

[eisentrauti]

I personally like the example Tanzania has taken. They have a single exporter they have permitted to produce F1 captive-bred specimens of many rare native reptile species, which they then give a limited export quota for (10-404 individuals of each species this year depending on the species). This exporter works closely with scientific researchers and Tanzanian CITES Management Authorities to establish these quotas based on his production of captive-bred babies and the impact of collecting limited numbers of founder specimens.

I have to disagree with Benny (eisentrauti), however, on his interpretation of the Tanzanian method and differences in EU vs. US regulations. First, the exporter in Tanzania has a close working relationship with herpetologists who work on the reptiles of Tanzania and the Tanzanian Management authority. I can personally vouch for the quality difference of the F1 animals this individual ships out compared to WC specimens. Having a single exporter permitted to export bonafide captive-bred specimens is much easier to regulate and monitor than multiple exporters. Additionally, the differences between EU and US regulations has absolutely nothing to do with the Standing Committee of CITES recommendations on importation of chameleons from Madagascar, or the lifting of this ban. The Standing Committee of CITES has not imposed any uneven trade restrictions, it was the EU's CITES Management Authority that chose to impose additional regulations on imports into the EU. That is a discussion that needs to be directed toward the EU's Management Authority and their policy, not toward the US's policy, Madagascar's policy or CITES in general's policy.

Chris

Chris, do you know the guy we are talking about? The things I have heard about him tell me that the only difference between him and the other guys down there are more cages/and more money for the authorities...
And about the quality: Prices which are way higher than the ones of his competitioners should at least lead in better animals.

My exporteur is able to send me shippments with 100% survival rate. So why shouldn't he be able to do this ?

About the problems with the unequal EU and US regulations. Of course I know that they have nothing to do with the CITES quotas of those countries itself.
But those regulations, in this case the ones from EU, support the black market trading here in Europe.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Benny,

I've never met Joe in person or been to his facility but I have spoken with him many times and received shipments from him in the past. I do know that he works closely with biologists and herpetologists who are working to conserve and identify Tanzania's herp diversity. I don't know of any other exporter with as many species named after them as Joe has named after him and that is a direct reflection of his cooperation and work with those scientists and authorities, and a reflection of credibility.

Regarding the survival rate and quality of the animals exported, your exporter may be able to provide 100% survival rate upon arrival, which is great, but the quality of Joe's F1 exports in my experience results in survival in captivity for significantly longer than in WC shipments in my experience. Survival rate on arrival and the length of time they survive after arrival are very different indicators.

Regarding who or how many exporters should be able to export limited F1 quotas, I believe it is better to limit the number of exporters able to do so. First, limited quotas for F1 exports are given as a means to make sure that only the number of animals that could reasonably be truly bred in captivity are exported to help prevent abuse from those who might be tempted to fill the remainder of the quota with WC animals. Thus, low quotas are a necessity to help ensure the F1 process. Secondly, the fewer the number of exporters allowed to produce and export F1s, the easier it is for the Management Authorities to monitor and verify the validity of the operation. Third, if more individuals were allowed to export these limited F1 quotas, all of a sudden 10 exporters each have a quota of 2 animals for some species. This would not help anyone because it is no longer profitable for the exporter to truly breed them if they can only sell 2 animals per year and the chances of getting a breeding group together in captivity is gone.

Chris

 

[Carlton]

Hi Everyone, I'd like to introduce myself, I'm an MSc student of International Wildlife Trade and Conservation at the Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology. I have just returned from a month long trip to Madagascar where I have been interviewing chameleon exporters and looking at ways of making the chameleon trade more sustainable and conservation oriented. I am now looking at possible scenarios of what could happen should the current trade restrictions be lifted and more species become available to be legally traded from Madagascar. I would be really keen to hear any opinions you might have on this and also if anyone knows of any species where trade embargos have been lifted as I am drawing a blank on finding these at the moment.

Thank you in advance, I look forward to hearing from you and participating in your forum :0)

Welcome! It is an honor to have you here and hope we can help.

I am not very current on Mada's export quota system (or lack of one) as I used to be, but possibly the species you are searching for are not chameleons...were the mantella frogs recently excused from quotas? Uroplatus geckos? Malagasy ground or tree boas? Terrestrial lizards? Insects? What about caudiciform plants such as the Pachypodiums? Seems to me there are more ads for wc individuals these days.

I think my major concerns over lifting embargos would be on the side of effects to wild populations rather than effects on dealers, hobbyists, breeders or the individual animals traded. As Chris stated earlier, if Madagascar can't demonstrate that the status of their wild populations is understood, what the added collection pressure might do to smaller or more isolated populations would be, or even what is hanging on in the face of ongoing habitat damage, the embargos should be honored. Maybe the embargos are not very specifically tuned, but it would be irresponsible to lift them. If, species by species, some sustainable management is put in place, some low quotas could be offered in the future. That can only be defended if some population level monitoring is also established. Some species may never be robust enough to handle collection and unfortunately those might be the very species of interest to collectors for bragging rights. Madagascar needs to show the will to resist exploiting them.

 

[eisentrauti]

Benny,

I've never met Joe in person or been to his facility but I have spoken with him many times and received shipments from him in the past. I do know that he works closely with biologists and herpetologists who are working to conserve and identify Tanzania's herp diversity. I don't know of any other exporter with as many species named after them as Joe has named after him and that is a direct reflection of his cooperation and work with those scientists and authorities, and a reflection of credibility.

Regarding the survival rate and quality of the animals exported, your exporter may be able to provide 100% survival rate upon arrival, which is great, but the quality of Joe's F1 exports in my experience results in survival in captivity for significantly longer than in WC shipments in my experience. Survival rate on arrival and the length of time they survive after arrival are very different indicators.

Regarding who or how many exporters should be able to export limited F1 quotas, I believe it is better to limit the number of exporters able to do so. First, limited quotas for F1 exports are given as a means to make sure that only the number of animals that could reasonably be truly bred in captivity are exported to help prevent abuse from those who might be tempted to fill the remainder of the quota with WC animals. Thus, low quotas are a necessity to help ensure the F1 process. Secondly, the fewer the number of exporters allowed to produce and export F1s, the easier it is for the Management Authorities to monitor and verify the validity of the operation. Third, if more individuals were allowed to export these limited F1 quotas, all of a sudden 10 exporters each have a quota of 2 animals for some species. This would not help anyone because it is no longer profitable for the exporter to truly breed them if they can only sell 2 animals per year and the chances of getting a breeding group together in captivity is gone.

Chris

As long as those complete quotas are shipped in the US, I can imagine that all are satiesfied... And at the moment we are talking not about a few exporteurs, we are talking about ONE single person who completely controlls everything which is shipped as f1.
In my opinion that's a completely inadequate state. A monopole is always great for the ones who benefit from it, for the rest it's not so great

 

[Chris Anderson]

Benny,

The entire quota is not sent to the US. A significant portion of that quota goes to Asia and Europe as well.

Regardless, when it relates to the future of a species survival in the wild, I'll take a monopoly that provides for limited legal export with minimal impact on wild populations over an open market that results in their extinction any day.

Further, supporting exporters or importers who knowingly send and receive illegal shipments of these species can only result in tougher restrictions in the future. I would not be surprised if the tougher restrictions on importation in the EU were in part because of the rampant and relatively public illegal trade seen in the EU.

Chris

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

I'm of the opinion that as stated before that the current quotas should be significantly reduced for all Madagascar quota species. Plus that a majority of the wc animals should go to captive breeding operations (that could make the best use of their varied genetics) and that the majority of chameleons in captivity should come from a niche market for captive bred chameleons (wild caught animals do not make good pets) coming from these breeder that receive these wc animals. However, I think there are some species (Calumma brevicornis and Calumma nasuta) that that should be listed as CITES quota species that are not listed as quota species now and should be allowed to be exported, exhibited and made available for keepers world wide to work with captivity.

I concur with Benny that if a system such as F1 captive farm bred animals are allowed to be exported out of Madagascar that it should be done by a couple to a handful of farms not just one farm breeder (a monopoly). I think a solution though is that these couple of farm breeders should be established in separate geographic locations through out Madagascar such one farm in southern Madagascar, one farm in central Madagascar and one in northern Madagascar. As the brood stock animals that are from these local areas are not shipped and stressed from traveling all across Madagascar. Plus when these animals are brought in as brood stock from local areas these local conditions are the optimum condition that these local species has evolved to reproduce in thus making a more effective farm breeding program.

Jeremy A. Rich
UC Davis Student

 

[eisentrauti]

Benny,

The entire quota is not sent to the US. A significant portion of that quota goes to Asia and Europe as well.

Regardless, when it relates to the future of a species survival in the wild, I'll take a monopoly that provides for limited legal export with minimal impact on wild populations over an open market that results in their extinction any day.

Further, supporting exporters or importers who knowingly send and receive illegal shipments of these species can only result in tougher restrictions in the future. I would not be surprised if the tougher restrictions on importation in the EU were in part because of the rampant and relatively public illegal trade seen in the EU.

Chris

The majority of this quota is shipped in the US every year. In Europe we have one single recipient who is able to get those "farm-raised" animals, about the Asian market I can't tell anything with the needed knowledge about it.

Currently I know just one species which could be a candidate for extinction, Brookesia perarmata, but I don't think that they are still traded.
It's a much bigger problem that eg Lygodactylus williamsi, living in 100 km2 area, is caught in so high numbers.

About the open "public illegal" trade: I hope you remember the bunch of parsoniis which were offered in the US in the last years. Maybe they are legal on the paper but that is it. And I'm sure parsoniis are just the only species which is traded in that way in the US, because it's worthy to do it.

Of course, we know that here in Europe are relatively more illegal animals but the numbers of those animals are still not high.
Don't get me wrong, but my moral compass tells me that 50 illegal pfefferis WC specimens in Europe are better than 150-200 legal pfefferi WC animals in the US.
The difference is on the paper, but for the populations in Cameroon it doesn't exist.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Benny,

I believe there is an importer in England who gets shipments with F1s as well as at least one on the main continent, but regardless, you have just as many, if not more, importers of F1 specimens in the EU as we do in the US and as far as I know, Asia gets more of them than we do here in the US because they will pay more.

As for candidates for extinction, there are a number of factors that go into correctly assessing a species' risk of extinction and there are additional species of chameleon which would qualify. At any rate, even if a species is not currently threatened with extinction, that does not mean that their populations can support the same levels of harvesting for the pet trade that other species can and in order to prevent those species from becoming threatened with extinction, it is important to impose strict regulations on the numbers collected.

As for the C. parsonii with questionable CITES documents, this too is a troubling situation. The system is not well set up to prevent fraudulent application for legal documents to otherwise illegal specimens and it is unfortunate that this type of fraud occurs and taints any specimens which may in fact be legal. Just like importers & exporters who knowingly violate CITES regulations by illegally importing species without permits, the individuals who fake these documents should be in prison as well.

As far as your statement that 50 illegal WC animals is better than 150 legal WC ones, I completely disagree. If we assume that the quota for a species is 150 animals, those 150 legal animals exported represent the entire legal quota for that year and as long as no illegal trade is present, the impact on the wild population is just that 150 every year. Because the 50 illegal animals are not included in the quota, the impact on the wild population is now 200 (the 150 legal and the 50 illegal). Legal specimens do not increase the total number harvested when quotas are present but illegal specimens do. This increases the risk of harvesting a population beyond the number it can sustainably take, thereby risking not only the species in the wild but also the status of any legal trade. One of the principle charges of CITES is to monitor the trade in listed species so that actions necessary to protect their populations in the wild can be exercised. Illegal smuggling of these species prevents the ability of CITES to do this, only making the problem worse.

Chris