CoP17 Prop. 61

Inclusion of Natal Ginger Siphonochilus aethiopicus (populations of Mozambique,South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe) in Appendix II
Proponent: South Africa
Summary: Siphonochilus aethiopicus, the Natal Ginger or Wild Ginger, is a long-lived plant that grows inseasonally dry woodlands with a perennial rhizome and annual above-ground parts that die off during the dry
season. It is widespread in tropical and sub-tropical Africa, occurring in 24 range States. The proposal only
concerns populations of Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.
Although believed to be affected by habitat loss, large-scale commercial harvesting to supply the herbal
medicine trade in southern Africa is considered to be the most important factor affecting the species, which isone of the most popular ingredients in traditional medicines, particularly in South Africa. Harvest for local
medicinal use has been implicated in declines in South Africa, where it is now extinct over much of its former
range, its extent of occurrence having reportedly declined by more than 90% over the last 100 years, now
standing at just over 8000km2 1. Thirty-nine known historical subpopulations were identified in South Africa in
2000, of which only 17 were still extant. More than half had fewer than 100 individuals, although some hadup to 4000 plants. The species is now extinct in KwaZulu-Natal and has declined drastically in Limpopo andMpumalanga Provinces. The majority of the remaining populations are reportedly not secure. Two-thirds
occur outside formal conservation areas and three of the six populations that are theoretically protected arereportedly still being heavily exploited.
Historically South Africa exported the plant (e.g. to Lesotho in the early 20 th century). The direction of tradeappears to have reversed. Demand is South Africa is apparently too high to be met by current production
from cultivated sources or locally sourced wild plants 2. Wild plants are reportedly being imported inincreasing quantities from neighbouring countries. One reported market observation in 2011 revealed
thousands of plants said to have been harvested in Zimbabwe and there are accounts of people travelling toZimbabwe from South Africa to harvest. Plants are also reportedly imported into South Africa and possibly
Swaziland from Mozambique. Because any trade that occurs is part of the informal economic sector it isdifficult to assess its volume.
Reports from Mozambique from 1987 and 2010 indicated it to be locally abundant in clumps in miombo
woodland. Healthy populations apparently still exist in northern Mozambique, although it is suspected thatsome of those in the south may be depleted. In Swaziland, remnant wild populations are not effectively
protected in protected areas and there is information on ongoing harvest of the species in at least one nature
reserve. There is no information available on population status or trends in Zimbabwe.
Outside the four range States that are the subject of the proposal, there are reports of numerous
S. aethiopicus populations in West Africa.
There is also some evidence of international trade through international online trade platforms, including fromSouth Africa and from Australia (of S. aethiopicus of South African origin).
In South Africa, S. aethiopicus is listed as an endangered species in the Threatened or Protected Species(TOPS) Regulation list. Permits are required for harvesting, possession and trade. In 2015, South Africa has
published (in draft)3 its intention to revise the TOPS listing of S. aethiopicus to a critically endangered
species of medicinal plants, which will restrict, through permitting, the import into South Africa of wildsourced material of the species, as well as domestic trade within the country. Under the listing, all artificially
propagated plants and their export would be exempt from controls 3.
In Swaziland, the Flora Protection Act lists S. aethiopicus as a specially protected flora species requiring
permits for harvest or export4.
Siphonochilus aethiopicus has not been assessed against the IUCN Red List criteria, but was assessed as
critically endangered in South Africa, as endangered in Swaziland, and was reported to be endangered inBenin.
Analysis: This proposal is limited to Siphonochilus aethiopicus populations in Mozambique, South Africa,
Swaziland and Zimbabwe. The populations in South Africa have evidently been seriously depleted byharvesting for domestic demand, and there are indications that harvesting for import into South Africa has
spread to the other three range States in the proposal. Import is believed to take place through informal
1

CoP17 Prop. 61
channels. Populations have been described as ‘remnant’ in Swaziland. Healthy populations reportedly exist
in northern Mozambique; there are suspicions of depletion in the south of the country. There is noinformation available on its status in Zimbabwe. On this basis there is insufficient evidence to determine
whether the species meets the criteria in Annex 2 a of Res. Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16).
Reviewers: D. Newton, V. Williams, N. Crouch and G. Nichols.
References:
Information not referenced in the Summary section is from the Supporting Statement.
1 Williams and Crouch unpublished, obtained from Williams. V, (2016) In litt. to IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses Team,Cambridge, UK.
2 Crouch, N (2016) In litt. to IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses Team, Cambridge, UK.
3 South Africa Department of Environmental Affairs (2015) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act(10/2004): Threatened or protected species regulations. do.: Publication of lists of species that are threatened orprotected, activities that are prohibited and exemption from restriction. Government Gazette, Notice 255 of 2015, No.
38600.
4 Minister for Agriculture and Cooperatives (2000) The Flora Protection Act, Schedule A, Especially protected flora(Endangered). Mbabane.

2