November 2021

ANALYsiNG
AMPHIBIANS
A RAPID ASSESSMENT

TRAFFIC REPORTABOUT USTRAFFIC is a leading non-governmentalorganisation working globally on trade in wild
animals and plants in the context of bothbiodiversity conservation and sustainable
development.
Reprod­uction of material appearing in this reportrequires written­permission from the publisher.
The designations of geographical entities in thispublication, and the presentation of the material,
do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC or its supportingorganisations concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, or area, or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries.
donorsWWF Japan
Pro Natura Foundation JapanPROJECT SupervisorS
Tomomi Kitade
Published by:

Staurois natator

TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
SUGGESTED CITATION
E. Drinkwater, W. Outhwaite, and T. Kitade. TRAFFIC(2021). Analysing Amphibians: A rapid assessment.
© TRAFFIC 2021. Copyright of material published inthis report is vested in TRAFFIC.
UK Registered Charity No. 1076722
DesignMarcus Cornthwaite

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Stephanie Pendry for her
guidance and Dr. Johnathan Kolby for his support in reviewing
the project. Thanks are also due to Keiko Wakao, Robin Sawyer,
and Thomasina Oldfield for their critical input into the manuscript.
Finally, the research was made possible by the funding
contributions from Pro Natura Foundation Japan’s 31st Pro Natura
Fund and WWF Japan.

contents
page 4

recommendations
page 6INTRODUCTION

Aim of this study
The role of CITES in reulating trade
Trade in the USA
Trade in Japan
Trade in Germany
Methodology
page 12RESULTS

US LEMIS data
Japan Cusoms data
page 18

KEY FINDINGS

Applying CITES Listings

page 22
References
Image credits
Annex 1RECOMMENDATIONSThis rapid assessment has highlighted a selection of high-risk species (Annex 1), which could
be candidates for consideration for future conservation actions. While this assessment does
not provide a comprehensive evaluation of whether each species meet the criteria for CITES
listings in Appendix I and II in Resolution 9.24, and the needs of each of these would need to becarefully assessed on a species-by-species basis, there are several recommendations which
could be considered:

Amphibians in
Annex 1 should
be exploredas candidates
for futureconservation work
AND REGULATION
Higher taxonomic
CITES listings could
be considered

4 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

For trade at the national and international levels.
NGOs should consider this list and highlight the species on it
as species of concern to representatives of Parties that may beinterested in putting forward these species for a CITES listing.
Parties, particularly the range states of the species highlighted in
Annex I, should consider putting forward the highlighted species forconsideration for CITES listing as a listing proposal.
Parties should consider protecting the species identified in Annex I
under appropriate national legislation. National legislation is key tospecies conservation, both to support CITES, and as a standalone
measure.
Parties and experts are recommended to consider the findings ofthis review when undertaking the study and activities put forward in
CITES Decision 18.194.

For groups where taxonomy is evolving, where
there are difficulties in identifying species withina group, or where multiple species in the samegroup are already listed or would benefit fromlisting as they are likely to face similar tradepressures.
NGOs and Parties should consult expert groups like the IUCN
specialist group to determine which higher taxonomic listings foramphibians would most benefit amphibian conservation throughbetter regulation of the trade of species where the taxonomy isevolving and where multiple species in the same group face similarpressures.

Changes tocustoms codesshould beconsidered

To enable customs data to be used to monitor the tradein amphibians better.
NGOs should engage with governments broadly (not just including
those explored in this study) to highlight and provide training toshow how customs trade data can be used for monitoring species ofconservation interest.
Governments (not just those explored in this study) should consider
how amphibians are represented in national customs trade data andconsider how changes to national customs data reporting could
improve national regulation of amphibians.
Governments should also consider how amphibians are represented
in international customs trade data and lobby the World Customs
Organization to change the international H.S. code system.

IGOs should consider how they can engage with NGOs andgovernments to lobby the World Customs Organization for changes tothe H.S. code system to improve monitoring of amphibians.

Photo caption title

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 5

INTRODUCTION
T H E A M P H I B I A N T R A D E I N V O LV E S
T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L M O V E M E N T O FMILLIONS OF AMPHIBIANS EVERY YEAR
These are traded predominantly for food, scientific and biomedical
purposes, and the pet trade. For an estimated 98% of amphibian
species, international trade is not covered by the regulations of theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). This lack of regulation is concerning given
the number of amphibian species threatened by direct impacts oftrade through the unsustainable wild collection and indirect effects oftrade, including the spread of disease1,2,3.

Red-eyed Tree Frog Agalychnis callidryas

6 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

Disease is one of the primary drivers of
the ongoing global declines of amphibians,
and the spread of many lethal amphibian
diseases is inextricably linked to the tradein amphibians, including the live trade3. It
was estimated in 2019 that 90 species ofamphibians4 had been driven to extinction
following the outbreaks of the chytrid fungus
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (known as
Bd). This fungus has spread rapidly acrossthe globe, most likely originating in Asia4
through the trade of infected individuals.
Infected animals may spread diseases rapidly
during trade as individuals may be kept ortransported in close proximity to many otherindividuals or even other species. Diseases
may then spread into wild wildlife populations
as infected individuals from trade could
infect wild individuals5, either directly, throughaccidental or intentional release, or indirectly
through improper disposal of contaminatedbedding or water. This infection of wild
individuals may lead to a disease outbreak.
Disease outbreaks in amphibians can be rapidand devastating, like the trade-associatedoutbreak of a chytrid fungus closely related
to Bd, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans(Bsal), which wiped out 99.9% of Fire
Salamander Salamandra salamandra
populations in the Netherlands within sevenyears1. There are serious concerns that
continued trade of amphibians will lead tofurther disease outbreaks.
As well as the indirect risks of disease,for many amphibians, the trade itself also
poses a direct threat to species survival. The
demand for animals for the pet trade is met,
at least in part with wild-caught individuals6.
International demand, particularly for rare or
newly discovered amphibians, coupled withunsustainable collection practices and poor
national regulation, has caused the declinesof many species, including iconic groups likethe Mantellidae, with severe declines7. To
reduce the impact of trade on wild amphibian
populations, international collaboration andmonitoring are needed. However, differencesin the trading patterns and regulation ofamphibians between countries complicate
this effort.

Aim of this study
This study aims to provide a rapid assessmentof the status and trade in amphibian species
which are not currently listed in the CITES
Appendices in three major trading countries(the USA, Japan, and Germany). Parties canuse the findings to identify species they
may wish to consider proposing for listingin Appendix I or II at future meetings of theConference of the Parties, to include at any
time on Appendix III, or for regulation at thenational level. This study highlights species
that may benefit most from further regulation.

The role of CITES in regulating trade
Species should be considered for listing in
CITES Appendices I and II if they meet thecriteria outlined in Resolution Conference 9.24
(Rev. CoP17):• Appendix I: the species is or may beaffected by trade and meets specificcriteria outlined in the Resolution related topopulation size, distribution, and decline.

• Appendix II: regulation of trade isnecessary to avoid the species being
eligible for inclusion in Appendix I or
regulation is required to ensure that harvest
is not threatening the survival of thespecies in the wild.
Species can be included at any time by a Partyon Appendix III if the species is subject toregulation within its jurisdiction to prevent or
restrict exploitation, and the Party requires the
co-operation of other Parties in the control of
trade.
Species listed in Appendix I and II are
regulated to ensure that international trade issustainable and legal. Data from the CITES
Trade Database provides some of the only
species-level trade data available for theinternational trade of amphibians. In 2021,
approximately 201 species of amphibians areincluded in the three CITES Appendices8.
While this study aims to focus on non-CITES
listed species, CITES data can be a valuable
tool for understanding broad country-level
trade patterns in amphibians, which in turncan be used to inform trade studies on nonlisted species.

Salamander Salamandra salamandra

TRADE IN THE USA

26 million+
specimensof live amphibians
imported into the
USA for commercial
trade between 2006
and 2014

The USA is an important destination country
for amphibians and the largest importer of
CITES-listed amphibians9. One study which
included both CITES and non-CITES listed
species reported imports of 26 million+
specimens of live amphibians plus four
million+ kilograms of live amphibians into the
USA for commercial trade between January
2006 and December 201410.There are concerns
about this trade, with questions raised about
the accuracy of the reported “captive” status
of most imports and data deficiencies aboutwild population sizes, making it challenging

to assess the sustainability of trade levels10. A
variety of laws cover the trade of amphibians
into the USA. These include the USA being asignatory of CITES, the Endangered Species
Act being in place which regulates a numberof amphibians12, and the Lacey Act. Under
the Lacey Act the USA regulates imports ofanimals that are traded in violation of foreign orState law (Lacey Act, 16 USC §§ 3371–3378)11,
also under the Lacey Act the imports of a rangeof salamanders are banned due to the risk of
spreading Bsal to native species.

TRADE IN JAPANJapan

is both a source
country anddestination
country forthe trade inamphibians

8 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

Japan is both a source country anda destination country for the trade inamphibians13. Work on the online trade ofamphibians has highlighted Japan’s role asa destination country for the trade in South
Asian Newts6, while a 2020 survey of Japan’s
involvement in the illegal pet trade highlighted
the role of Japan as a source country ofendemic amphibians from the Nansei
Islands13. While according to 2010-2020 CITES
data, Japan reported imports of the secondhighest number of live CITES-listed amphibian
specimens imported into a country or territory
during this time as reported by the importing
country14. These findings suggest an importantrole of Japan in the trade of amphibians.

As well as being a signatory of CITES, Japan
regulates trade in amphibians under the Law
for Conservation of Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora. Once the animals havecrossed Japan’s border, species listed in CITES
Appendix I, but not Appendix II or III, are listed
under the Law for Conservation of Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora15. The
Invasive Alien Species Act regulates the importof designated non-native species deemedharmful to ecosystems, human safety, andprimary industries16. Fifteen amphibian species(frogs), including the North American Bullfrogs
Rana catesbeiana, are banned from import asof November 2020.

TRADE IN GERMANY
Within the EU, Germany is a leading destination
for traded animals, with a high demand forexotic pets, including amphibians17. One
12-month survey of select physical andonline marketplaces in Germany found
352 amphibian species offered for sale18.
Concerningly, several recently discovered
species for sale included the Cloaked Moss
Frog Theloderma palliatum, which wasrecorded in trade in Germany in 2020 despite
only being described in 2011 in Viet Nam17.
It has been suggested that amphibians andreptiles may be laundered through European
pet markets and then imported by the USA17.
Germany regulates the import of animals
from outside the E.U. through the E.U. Wildlife
Trade Regulations19, under which species areincluded in four Annexes (A-D). While Annexes
A-C largely follows the CITES Appendix-I to III
listings, Annex D regulates the trade in some
non-CITES listed species. In addition, the E.U.
has legislation to control the trade in species
which may pose an ecological threat to species
in the E.U. (Council Regulation (E.C.) No 338/97

on the protection of species of wild fauna andflora by regulating trade therein)19, including theimport ban of North American Bullfrogs Ranacatesbeiana (EU 338/97). Additionally, imported
salamander specimens need to be certified as
free of Bsal (E.U. 2018/320)20, and there are
requirements for veterinary checks at borders;
this is covered under (E.U. 2017/625)21.
In 2020 a thorough assessment by Altherr et al.
(2020)18 was published on the exotic pet tradein Germany which provided key insights into
the species in trade. In this study surveys forthe sale of exotic pets were carried out of bothonline marketplaces and physical shops. Thesesurveys were then compared to data fromother sources like trade data from CITES andEUROSTAT18. These surveys highlighted thediversity of species involved in the exotic pet
trade, including a high number of amphibian
species. The species identified in this study will
be used in this assessment instead of customs
trade data from Germany, as German Customs
data with species-level recording of non-CITES
listed amphibians is not currently available.

Germany

is a leading
destination forexotic pets within
the EU

Photo caption title
Himalayan Crocodile Newt Tylototriton verrucosus

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 9METHODOLOGYD ATA S O U R C E S
The USA customs analysis is based on
USA data through the Law Enforcement
Management Information System (LEMIS),
while the Japan analysis is based on Japancustoms data. Additional information is derived
from a study of amphibian trade in Germany18
and a survey of amphibian markets in Japan(in prep.). Contextual information about eachspecies was downloaded from the CITES,
Species+, and the IUCN Red List websites in
May-June 2021.

1. Countries observed in trade (max score

USA import data from LEMIS covered theperiod 2008-2018. Data were included in thepresent analysis if at least one of the following
were met:

IUCN population trend was scored in thefollowing way: Increasing=-2, Stable=0,
Decreasing=2, Unknown =2.

1. The wildlife category was recorded as anamphibian2. The specimens were described as “live”
3. The generic name was reported as“amphibians,” “salamander,” or “frog”

4. Class was reported as Amphibia
The data were then cleaned, and the reported
names of the species were standardized to
IUCN recognized taxonomy. Species alreadylisted in the CITES Appendices (I, II, and III)
were removed. Information was downloaded
from the IUCN Red List regarding category,range countries, and whether the species wereidentified as being threatened by intentionaluse (where species is the target). Species
that were reported as traded for “commercial
purposes” (T) were selected for analysis as
this category represented the majority of the
trade (see Figure 1). However, for the risk
score species traded for any reported purpose
would receive a risk score of 1 for being intrade. Quantities in Annex 1 therefore include
specimens traded under all purpose codes.
Risk scores were calculated to provide a metricof risk based on:

10 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

3): One point was assigned for each oneof the three countries it was found in trade(Germany, Japan, USA)

2. Red List status (max score 4): The IUCNRed List category was scored in thefollowing way: Least Concern (L.C.)=0, Near
Threatened (N.T.)=1, Vulnerable (V.U.)=2,Endangered (EN)=3, Critically Endangered(C.R.) =4, Data Deficient (D.D.) = 2.

3. Population trend (max score 2): The

4. Use (max score 2): Intentional use (5.1.1)
in IUCN Red List assessment identified
as a threat = 2. (IUCN threats 5.4.1 and5.4.2 (fishing and harvesting of aquatic
resources) were also considered, but use
was decided against due to the lack of
species in trade which were recorded tohave this as a threat).

5. The timing of threat (max score 1): Timingof threat according to IUCN Red List
assessment: Unknown=1, Blank*=0, Past
unlikely to return= -1, Ongoing =1, Future=1.
*Blank is only used in assessments when
trade is not identified as a threat.
These individual factors added up to a
maximum score of 12. The highest risk scores
were used to identify species candidates
which may benefit from further regulation. It
must be noted that while other risk metrics
could be used for this rapid assessment,
this method was deemed to be sufficient tosuggest potential candidates. For Annex I, only
amphibians that scored seven or above were
included. It must be noted that while thesehave been identified as being conservation
priority from this rapid assessment, it wasoutside the scope of this study to investigate
in depth the conservation status of each.
Therefore some species of lower conservation
concern may be included.

FIGURE 1
Chart showing the percentage of imported non-CITES listed amphibians reported as live specimens whichwere (1) T - Reported as traded for commercial reasons (2) E- Reported as traded for educational reasons (3)Other*- Traded for one of the following reasons: B - Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation/S- Scientific/*- Unknown/M - Biomedical research/P – Personal/Y - Reintroduction/introduction into the wild/H - Hunting
Trophies / Q- Circuses/traveling exhibitions/Z – Zoos. LEMIS data 2008-2018.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

t-commercial

e-educationother

C AV E AT S
Some limitations should be considered forthese data sources. For example:• The LEMIS dataset which was available
for this analysis did not indicate theshipment’s control number, which meantthat provenance or final destination were
not available. Additionally, these data do
not distinguish whether the shipment wasusing U.S. ports as transit points or as finaldestinations. The analysis is only able todepict data on wildlife products that areimported to and exported from the U.S. at
the federal level but does not necessarily
demonstrate the entire trade flow of wildlife
from origin to final destination.

• In the LEMIS data, inconsistencies were
found in the taxonomy used. For example,
different species were consideredsynonyms of the same species according to
the IUCN Red List taxonomy. In some cases,
it was not possible to match a reported
species name to a species name recognizedby the IUCN.

• The Japan customs data does not report tospecies level. Therefore, it was not possible
to identify and remove imports of CITESlisted specimens. Also, small shipments
under a specific value are exempt frombeing declared on import or export, so not
all trade will be recorded in the customs
data.

• The IUCN Red List threat “Intentional use(species being assessed is the target)” wasused to measure trade as a threat. It should
be noted that this threat covers domestic
and international use.

Photo caption title

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 11

RESULTSIT IS CLEAR FROM THIS STUDY THAT A LARGE
VOLUME OF NON-CITES-LISTED AMPHIBIANSPECIES ARE CURRENTLY IN TRADE.

Phyllomedusa hypochondrialis

12 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

Photo caption title

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 13

US LEMIS DATAFIGURE 2
Quantities of live amphibians reported to be imported into the USA between 2008 and 2018. Only the number of
specimens is shown here. Specimens reported by mass are not shown (LEMIS data).

According to LEMIS data, in total,
approximately 27 million live non-CITES
listed individuals plus about 4 million
kg of live non-CITES listed amphibians
were reportedly imported into the USA forcommercial reasons between 2008 and 2018.

27 million

live, non-CITESlisted amphibians
were imported
into the USA
between
2008-201814 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

Within these, it was possible to match 267
species with an IUCN recognized species
name. However, this is likely to underestimate
the number of species in trade. There arelikely species not reported to species levelor not matched with their IUCN taxon I.D.
(an individual identifier for each taxon) due
to the name being misspelled or the use of
unrecognized synonyms, or the species nothaving been assessed by the IUCN. The top
exporter of non-CITES-listed live amphibians
to the USA was Taiwan PoC (97% of live nonCITES listed amphibians reported by mass, and
40% of amphibians reported by the number ofindividuals). However, 99% of reported imports
from Taiwan were made up of American
Bullfrogs Rana catesbeinana, and the second
most significant reported exporter wasHong Kong, SAR. Taiwan PoC first imported
American Bullfrogs in 1950 as an alternative

species for aquaculture. Since then, it has
become one of the major global exportersof live American Bullfrogs and the legs ofthis species18. American Bullfrogs are tradedfor consumption and scientific and medical
purposes. Exporters to the USA are shown in
Figure 2.
Approximately 25% of live individuals of nonCITES listed species reported in kilograms,
and 29% of live individuals of non-CITES
listed amphibians reported by number werereported to be from wild sources, while the rest
were from captive sources (born in captivity/ranched/bred in captivity/commercially bred)(Figure 3). Some of those reported as captivebred may be from the wild, as launderingwild-caught individuals has previously beenreported in amphibians1. Additionally, there wasa report of 4kg of non-CITES-listed amphibians
being introduced from the sea; however, this
could have been a reporting error.
Approximately 97.5% of USA imports of
non-CITES listed amphibians for commercial
trade were of amphibian species categorized
as Least Concern by the IUCN Red List (morethan 26 million specimens and more than
4 million kilos of live individuals) (Table 1).
Threatened categories (NT, VU, EN, CR) madeup approximately 0.5% of reported imports.
Also, around 10% of specimens were reportedby the IUCN Red List to be from species
undergoing population declines. In comparison,
the population trend for approximately 20%of specimens was reported to be unknown.

Additionally, there was a significant numberof specimens for which the IUCN Red List
category could not be determined. This wasprimarily due to a lack of reporting of LEMIS
data to species level: more than 10,000kg, and400,000 individuals of live non-CITES listed
amphibians could not be linked to an IUCN
taxon I.D.

around 10%of specimens werereported by the IUCNRed List to be from
species undergoing
population declines

FIGURE 3
Reported source of live non-CITES listed amphibians imported into the USA between 2008 and 2018 forcommercial purposes (LEMIS data). Specimens taken from the wild - W, Animals bred in captivity- C, Animals
born in captivity- F, Specimens originating from a ranching operation - R, Source unknown - U, Commercially bred
– D, Introduction from the sea - X

1.2

18

Number of specimens (millions)

16

1

14

0.8

12
10

0.6

8

0.4

6
4

0.2

2
0

C

W

F

R

Number of specimens (millions)

D

U

X

0

Kg (millions)

TABLE 1IUCN Red List Categories of live non-CITES listed amphibians imported into the USA between 2008 and 2018 forcommercial purposes (LEMIS data). (*) For many incidents, the species could not be linked to an IUCN taxon id.
In most cases, this was due to amphibians not being reported to species level.

Number of specimens

Percent of number of
specimens (%)

25,5150.1

26,370,632

97.5

Near Threatened

129,707

0.5

Vulnerable

7,243

0.0

Endangered

1,838

0.0

Critically Endangered

140

0.0

498,245

1.8

IUCN category

Mass (Kg)

Percent of mass (Kg) (%)

Data Deficient
Least Concern

Not reported

4,024,933

12,05699.7

0.3

Photo caption title

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 15

The reported quantities of non-CITES-listed
amphibians imported into the USA forcommercial purposes have remained largely
consistent over time (Figure 4). Imports
peaked in 2008 before declining to an averageof 2.2 million between 2010 and 2018. The
value of imports peaked in 2016/2017. Further
information is required to determine if thesechanges are due to fluctuations of species intrade or changes in reporting.

FIGURE 4
Quantities and values of live non-CITES listed amphibians imported into the USA between 2008 and 2018 forcommercial purposes over time. Only the number of specimens is shown here, not imports reported in mass
(LEMIS data).

2

4

1.8
1.6

3

1.4

2.5

1.2
1

2

0.8

1.5

0.6

1

0.4

0.5
0

Value (millions of USD)

Nnumber of specimens (millions)

3.5

0.2
2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Number of specimens (millions)

2015

2016

2017

2018

0

Value (millions USD)

JAPAN CUSTOMS DATA
During the period of 2005-2020, Japan
imported a total of nearly 130,000 amphibians
worth approximately JPY 385 million (~USD
3.7 million). Japan reported importing thehighest number of amphibians from the USA(more than 27,000 individuals) (Figure 5).

While it was not possible to determine what
species are in trade from the customs data,
more than 80% of imports of live specimens
were in the order Anura (frogs and toads),
whereas the remainder was Caudata(salamanders and newts). Imports under“other” was negligible (Table 2).

TABLE 2
Orders of live amphibians reportedly imported into Japan between 2005 and 2020 (Japan customs data).

Racophorus gongshanensis

16 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

Number of live specimens

Value (JPY 1,000)

Anura

105,949

319,946

Caudata

23,546

63,235

Other

314

1,818

Total

129,809384,999

FIGURE 5
Quantities of live amphibians reported to be imported into Japan between 2005 and 2020, by reported countryof export. Only the number of specimens is shown here. Specimens reported by mass are not shown (Japancustoms data).

FIGURE6
Quantities and values of live amphibians reported to be imported into Japan between 2005 and 2020. Only
number of specimens is shown here, specimens by mass are not shown (Japan customs data).

60,00020,00018,00050,00016,00040,00012,00030,00010,0008,000

Value (1,000 JPY)

Number of specimens

14,00020,000

6,000
4,000

10,0002,000
02005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Number of specimens

0

Value (1,000 JPY)
Photo caption title

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 17

KEY FINDINGSGIVEN THE ONGOING DECLINES OFAMPHIBIANS, CONSERVATION ACTIONS,INCLUDING REGULATING INTERNATIONAL
TRADE THROUGH CITES, SHOULD BECONSIDERED AS A MATTER OF URGENCY.
Treefrog (Hylidae)

18 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

Photo caption title

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 19

It is clear from this study that a large volume
of non-CITES-listed amphibian species are
currently in trade.

29%of commerciallytraded non-CITES
listed species are
sourced from thewild

At least 267 non-listed species arecommercially traded, of which 0.5% were fromIUCN threatened categories (NT, VU, EN, CR),and 29% are sourced from the wild (by the
number of reported individuals). While reported
trade levels appear steady for the U.S., thetrade in amphibians in Japan has potentially
increased. The findings of high numbersof non-CITES listed species in trade in thisstudy are supported by the 2020 review of the
trade of exotics in Germany,18 which found ahigh number of amphibian species in trade,including some species from IUCN threatened
categories. Together the findings highlightthat there is a high volume of non-CITES listed
species in trade, some of which may be ofconservation concern.
There are challenges to monitoring the trade in
non-CITES-listed amphibians. In many cases,
their trade is not recorded to a level that would
be usable for guiding conservation policy. For
example, under the widely used international

Rhacophorus gongshanensis

20 ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS

customs code system (Harmonized System),amphibians are traded under customs codesfor “tropical fish or “other”, which makes
species highly challenging to trace, and thescale of the amphibian trade hard to determine.
The only available data are, therefore, trade
data collected at a national level. Better
monitoring and regulatory systems are
therefore needed to manage the trade in nonCITES-listed amphibians.
Given the ongoing declines of amphibians,
conservation actions, including regulatinginternational trade through CITES, should beconsidered as a matter of urgency. This study
highlights candidates for consideration for
CITES listing. These candidate species areincluded in Annex 1. With so many amphibian
species in trade and limited budget andresources available for conservation actions,a targeted approach is needed to ensure thebest conservation outcomes are achieved fromthe available resources. It is hoped that thefindings of this rapid review will feed into theamphibian study being undertaken through
CITES Decision 18.194.

APPLYING CITES LISTINGS
Care must be taken to ensure that any
regulation put in place will not haveunintended consequences.

for non-CITES-listed species can make tracking
whether demand has changed following thelisting of similar species challenging.

CITES listing of species is an invaluable tool
for regulating the international trade of wildlife.
However, there is a risk that listing may haveunintended consequences. In cases where
demand is inelastic (constant regardless of theprice), regulation such as a CITES listing maylead to a black market23. Additionally, costs
associated with regulating a species to both
range states and traders must be considered.
However, in many cases, regulation can be
critical to species conservation and cansignificantly outweigh the risks. Therefore, it isessential that potential negative consequencesof regulation are considered on a species-byspecies basis24.

Species in trade, classified as threatened byintentional use, warrant consideration forlisting in Appendix I or II. Appendix I may beappropriate for species with a restricted range,
decreasing population trend, or high threat
category. These types of listing can only be
adopted at one of the CITES Conferences of
the Parties but can provide comprehensive
regulation when fully implemented.

There should also be consideration of what alisting means for other species. For example,
Laotian Newt Laotriton laoensis, previously
considered a synonym of Paramesotriton
laoensis, were not included along with thelisting of the newt genera Paramesotriton spp.
and Tylototriton spp. in Appendix II. Prior tolisting these genera, it was highlighted that
if these genera were listed, it might increase
trade pressures on unlisted species such as
the Laotian Warty Newt Laotriton laoensis25.
However, in many cases, the lack of trade data

Countries with national legislation alreadyin place to protect the species may benefit
from a CITES Appendix III listing. This type oflisting is aimed to support range states who
have protected species but require support
from other countries in ensuring protection iseffective. A species can be listed in Appendix
III at any time by a range State and can beparticularly effective when the species range
is restricted to a limited number of countries.
Listing a species in Appendix III can be a useful
way of collecting information on trade volumes
to support any future listing proposals forinclusion in Appendix I or II.

Photo caption title

ANALYSING AMPHIBIANS 21

REFERENCES
Auliya, M., García-Moreno, J., Schmidt, B.R., Schmeller D.S., Hoogmoed, M.S., Fisher, M.C., Pasmans, F., Henle, K., Bickford, D., & Martel,A. (2016). The global amphibian trade flows through Europe: the need for enforcing and improving legislation. 			
Biodiversity and conservation 25(13), 2581-2595.
2
Drinkwater, E. (2016). Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans as a threat to British amphibians. Herpetological Bulletin 137, 1.
3
Gratwicke, B., Evans, M.J., Jenkins, P.T., Kusrini, M.D., Moore, R.D., Sevin, J., & Wildt, D.E. (2010). Is the international frog legs trade apotential vector for deadly amphibian pathogens? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, 438-442.
4
Scheele, B.C., Pasmans, F., Skerratt, L.F., Berger, L., Martel, A.N., Beukema, W., Acevedo, A.A., Burrowes, P.A., Carvalho, T., Catenazzi, A. &De la Riva, I. (2019). Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363(6434), 14591463.
5
Woodhams, D. C., Bletz, M., Kueneman, J., & McKenzie, V. (2016). Managing amphibian disease with skin microbiota. Trends in 		
microbiology, 24(3), 161-164.
6
Rowley, J.J., Shepherd, C.R., Stuart, B.L., Nguyen, T.Q., Hoang, H.D., Cutajar, T.P., Wogan, G.O. & Phimmachak, S. (2016). Estimating the
global trade in Southeast Asian newts. Biological Conservation, 199, 96-100.
7
Andreone F., Mercurio V., & Mattioli F. (2006). Between environmental degradation and international pet trade:conservation strategies forthe threatened amphibians of Madagascar. Natura 95, 81–96.
8
CITES. (2021). The CITES species. https://cites.org/eng/disc/species.php. Retrieved: 06.07.2021.
9
CITES Dashboard (2021). CITES Trade Database. https://dashboards.cites.org/. Retrieved: 09.08.2021.
10
Altmann, M. C., & Kolby, J. E. (2017). Trends in U.S. imports of amphibians in light of the potential spread of chytrid fungus, 		Batrachochytrium Dendrobatidis (Bd), and implications for conservation. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 		20(3-4), 226-252.
11
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2004) Lacey Act, 16 USC §§ 3371–3378/ https://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf. Retrieved: 28.09.2021.
12
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2021). Listed Foreign Species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-foreign?statusCategory=Listed Retrieved: 29.06.202.
13
Kitade, T. & Naruse, Y. (2020). Crossing the red line. TRAFFIC Report.
https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/12923/crossing_the_red_line_en-forweb.pdf Retrieved: 15.06.2021.
14
CITES Trade Database (2021). CITES Trade Database. https://trade.cites.org/. Retrieved: 07.07.2021.
15
Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan (2021). Act on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
https://www.env.go.jp/nature/kisho/kisei/en/species/Retrieved: 28.09.2021.
16
Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan (2021). Alien Species. https://www.env.go.jp/en/nature/as.html/ Retrieved 28.09.2021
17
Altherr, S., & Lameter, K. (2020). The rush for the rare: Reptiles and amphibians in the European pet trade. Animals 10(11), 2085.
18
Altherr, S., Freyer, D., & Lameter, K. (2020) Strategien zur Reduktion der Nachfrage nach als Heimtiere gehaltenen Reptilien, Amphibien
und kleinen Säugetieren. Artenschutzrelevanz des Heimtierhandels; Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 1-466.
19
European Commission. (2021a). The European Union and Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/legislation_en.htm Retrieved: 29.06.2021.
20
Thumsová, B., Bosch, J., & Martinez-Silvestre, A. (2021). Incidence of emerging pathogens in legal and illegal amphibian trade in Spain.
Herpetology Notes, 14, 777-784.
21
European Commission. (2021b). Legislation.
https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/veterinary-border-control/legislation_en. Retrieved: 29.06.2021.
22
FAO. 2009. Rana catesbeiana. In Cultured aquatic species fact sheets. Text by Flores Nava, A. Edited and compiled by Valerio Crespi
and Michael New. http://www.fao.org/fishery/docs/CDrom/aquaculture/I1129m/file/en/en_americanbullfrog.htm.
Retrieved:19.08.2020.
23
Challender, D., Hinsley, A., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2019). Inadequacies in establishing CITES trade bans. Frontiers in Ecology and the 		
Environment, 17(4).
24Cooney, R., Challender, D. W., Broad, S., Roe, D., & Natusch, D. J. (2021). Think before you act: improving the conservation outcomes of
CITES listing decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9, 236.
25
IUCN & TRAFFIC. (2019). IUCN/TRAFFIC analyses of the proposals to amend the CITES Appendices at the 18th Meeting of The 		
Conference Of The Parties. https://www.traffic.org/site/assets/files/12220/iucn-traffic_analyses_for_cop18_-_full_version.pdf.
Retrieved: 06.07.2021.
1

22 SHORT REPORT TITLEIMAGE CREDITS
Cover

Magnus Lundgren / Wild Wonders of China / WWF

2

WWF Indonesia / Jimmy Syahirsyah

6

John Vess8

Wild Wonders of Europe / Maurizio Biancarelli / WWF

8

Richard Barrett

9John P. Clare / Pixabay

12

WWF Brazil / Zig Koch18

André Bärtschi / WWF

20

Magnus Lundgren / Wild Wonders of China / WWF

21

DerWeg / Pixabay

27

Magnus Lundgren / Wild Wonders of China / WWF

SHORT REPORT TITLE 23

ANNEX I
LIST OF AMPHIBIAN SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS HIGHCONSERVATION PRIORITY FROM THE RAPID ASSESSMENT
Common nameSpeciesSpecimens(Numberreported in
LEMIS data)

Kg

Wild
specimens(number)Kg wild

Offered forsale in Japan(TRAFFIC study,
unpub.)

Offeredfor sale inGermany18

EUlisting

Red listcategory

Population trend

Range

Trade threat

TimingYear IUCN Red
List assessment
published

Risk
score

Achoque, Anderson's
Salamander

Ambystoma andersoni

60

Yes

Yes

CriticallyEndangered

Decreasing

MexicoYes

Ongoing

2015

11

Giant Ditch Frog,
Mountain Chicken

Leptodactylus fallax

9

No

Yes

CriticallyEndangered

Decreasing

Montserrat, Martinique,Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Guadeloupe, Dominica

Yes

Ongoing2017

10

Laos Warty Newt

Laotriton laoensis

282

No

Yes

Endangered

Decreasing

Lao People's Democratic
Republic

Yes

Ongoing

2014

9

Azerbaijan Newt, Lake
Urmia Newt, Azarbaijan
Mountain Newt

Neurergus crocatus

385

Yes

Yes

Vulnerable

Decreasing

Turkey, Iraq, Iran

Yes

Ongoing

2009

9

Limosa Harlequin Frog

Atelopus limosus

79

Yes

Yes

CriticallyEndangered

Decreasing

Panama

No

2019

9

Sword-tailed Newt,
Shiriken-Imori

Cynops ensicauda

14

Yes

Yes

Vulnerable

Decreasing

Japan

Yes

Ongoing

2021

9

Helen’s Tree Frog

Rhacophorus helenae

76

76

No

Yes

Endangered

Unknown

Viet Nam

Yes

Ongoing2014

9

Nihon Imori, JapaneseFire-bellied Newt

Cynops pyrrhogaster

93951

34879

Yes

Yes

Near
Threatened

Decreasing

Japan

Yes

Ongoing2021

8

Hispaniolan Giant
Treefrog

Osteopilus vastus

3891

3891

No

Yes

Vulnerable

Unknown

Haiti, Dominican
Republic

Yes

Ongoing

2013

8

Argentinean Horned Frog,
Bell’s Ceratophrys, Ornate
Horned Frog, Sapo-boi

Ceratophrys ornata

22368

412

Yes

Yes

Near
Threatened

Decreasing

Uruguay, Brazil,
Argentina

Yes

Ongoing

2004

8

Amani Forest Treefrog

Leptopelis vermiculatus

261

260

Yes

Yes

Endangered

Unknown

Tanzania

No

2014

8

Ech cay san hai mau, ech
cay san sa pa, Chapa
Bug-eyed Frog

Theloderma bicolor

479

479

Yes

Yes

Endangered

Unknown

Viet Nam

No

2004

8

Riobamba Marsupial
Frog, Riobamba Pouched
Frog, Rana Marsupial
AndinaGastrotheca riobambae

43

6

Yes

Yes

Endangered

Decreasing

Ecuador

No

2004

8

252

79

D

D

Common nameSpeciesSpecimens(Numberreported in
LEMIS data)

Kg

Wild
specimens(number)Kg wild

Offered forsale in Japan(TRAFFIC study,
unpub.)

Offeredfor sale inGermany18

411

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Republic of Korea,
Russia, Democratic
People's Republic ofKorea, Mainland China

Yes

Ongoing

2020

7

EU
listing

Red listcategory

Population trend

Range

Trade threat

TimingYear IUCN Red
List assessment
published

Risk
score

Oriental Bell Toad, Oriental
Fire-bellied Toad

Bombina orientalis

20037231097104

Chinese Dwarf
Newt,Chinese Fire-bellied
Newt, Oriental Fire-bellied
Newt

Cynops orientalis

541937

162093

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Mainland China

Yes

Ongoing

2020

7

Chacoan Horned Frog,
Cranwell's Horned Frog

Ceratophrys cranwelli

17552

1635

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil,
Argentina

Yes

Ongoing

2004

7

African Bullfrog

Pyxicephalus adspersus

11716

10256

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Kenya, Angola, Tanzania,
Namibia, Zimbabwe,
Democratic Republicof the Congo, Zambia,
Eswatini, Mozambique,South Africa, Malawi,
Botswana

Yes

Ongoing

2013

7

Congo Caecilian

Herpele squalostoma

1920

1920

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Nigeria, Gabon,
Equatorial Guinea,
Congo, The Democratic
Republic of the Congo,
Central African Republic,
Cameroon, Angola

Yes

Ongoing20187

Common Fire
Salamander, Fire
Salamander

Salamandra salamandra

11029

912

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Albania, Liechtenstein,
Netherlands, Spain,
Austria, Czechia,
Germany, Belgium,
North Macedonia,
Montenegro, Bulgaria,
France, Hungary, Turkey,
Romania, Croatia,
Luxembourg, Slovenia,
Slovakia, Italy, San
Marino, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Poland,
Portugal, Serbia, Ukraine,
Andorra, Switzerland,
GreeceCommon nameSpeciesSpecimens(Numberreported in
LEMIS data)

Kg

Wild
specimens(number)Kg wild

Offered forsale in Japan(TRAFFIC study,
unpub.)

Offeredfor sale inGermany18

EUlisting

Red listcategory

Population trend

Range

Trade threat

TimingYear IUCN Red
List assessment
published

Risk
score

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Viet Nam, Lao, Mainland
China

Yes

Unknown

2017

7

Near
Threatened

Decreasing

Honduras, Guatemala,BelizeYes

Ongoing

2020

7

No

Vulnerable

Decreasing

Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Italy, Croatia, Slovenia,
Montenegro, France,
SerbiaYes

Ongoing

2009

7

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Denmark, Moldova,
Germany, Belgium,
France, Hungary,
Norway, Romania, United
Kingdom, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Belarus,
Latvia, Czechia, Austria,
Sweden, Slovakia,
Poland, Ukraine, Serbia,
Russia, Switzerland,
Netherlands,
Liechtenstein, Estonia

Yes

Ongoing

2009

7

80

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Indonesia

Yes

Ongoing

2018

7

2551

2333

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Myanmar, Lao People's
Democratic Republic,
Thailand, Viet Nam,
Cambodia, Malaysia

Yes

Ongoing

2016

7

Xenopus amieti

400

400

No

No

Vulnerable

Decreasing

Cameroon

Yes

Ongoing20187

Taylor's Bug-Eyed Frog

Theloderma stellatum

18

12

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Thailand, Cambodia,
MyanmarYes

Unknown

2016

7

Savanna Clawed Frog,
Lake Oku Clawed Frog

Xenopus longipes

42

41

No

No

CriticallyEndangered

Decreasing

Cameroon

No

2020

7

Brazilian Horned Frog

Ceratophrys aurita

156

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

BrazilYes

Ongoing

2004

7

Marbled Newt, Jaspeado

Triturus marmoratus

16

16

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Spain, France, Portugal

Yes

Ongoing

2009

7

Cameroon Slippery Frog

Conraua robusta

20

20

No

No

Vulnerable

Decreasing

Nigeria, Cameroon

Yes

Ongoing

2019

7

La Palma Glass Frog

Hyalinobatrachium
valerioi

50

Yes

Yes

Least
ConcernDecreasing

Panama, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Ecuador

Yes

Ongoing

2020

7

Tonkin Bug-eyed Frog

Theloderma corticale

656

307

Yes

Yes

Doflein'sMushroomtongue
Salamander, Doflein's
Salamander

Bolitoglossa dofleini

14

14

Yes

No

Olm, Proteus, Proteo

Proteus anguinus

3

No

Great Crested Newt,
Northern Crested Newt,

Triturus cristatus

14

Horned Frog, Javan
Horned Frog, AsianSpadefoot Toad

Megophrys montana

80

Blotched Burrowing Frog,
Orange Burrowing Frog,
Striped Spadefoot Frog,
Burmese Squat Frog

Glyphoglossus
guttulatus

Volcano Clawed Frog

D

Emperor newt Tylototriton shanjing

NOVEMBER 2021
WORKING TO ENSURE THE TRADE IN
WILD PLANTS AND ANIMALS IS NOTA T H R E AT TO T H E C O N S E R VAT I O N
O F N AT U R E

TRAFFIC+44(0)1223 331 997

traffic@traffic.org
traffic.org