Teresa Mulliken and Petra Crofton

Review of the Status, Harvest,
Trade and Management of Seven
Asian CITES-listed Medicinal
and Aromatic Plant Species

BfN – Skripten 227
2008

Review of the Status, Harvest,
Trade and Management of Seven
Asian CITES-listed Medicinal
and Aromatic Plant Species
Results of the R+D Project FKZ 804 86 003

Teresa Mulliken
Petra Crofton

Cover picture:

Himalayan yew (Taxus wallichiana), Valley of Flowers National Park, Nanda Devi
Biosphere Reserve. Photo: SAMIR SINHA (TRAFFIC India) 2006.

Authors’ addresses:
Teresa Mulliken

Petra Crofton

TRAFFIC International
219a Huntingdon Road
Cambridge
CB3 0DLUK
E-mail: Teresa.Mulliken@traffic.org
c/o IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme
219 a Huntingdon Road
Cambridge
CB3 0DL
UK

This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online” (www.dnl-online.de)
BfN-Skripten are not available in book trade.
Publisher:

Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Konstantinstrasse 11053179 Bonn, Germany
URL: http://www.bfn.de

All rights reserved by BfN
The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and viewsin this report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties.
Views expressed in the papers published in this issue of BfN-Skripten are those of the authors and do
not necessarily represent those of the publisher.
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form orby any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information
storage and retrieval system without written permission from the copyright owner.
Printed by the printing office of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear
Safety.
Printed on 100% recycled paper.
Bonn, Germany 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................4
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................5
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................7
CITES Medicinal Plant Species In Asia – Treasured Past, Threatened Future? ...................................9
Species accounts
Desert Cistanche Cistanche deserticola .....................................................................................................17
Elephant’s Foot Dioscorea deltoidea...........................................................................................................27
Jatamansi Nardostachys grandiflora ...........................................................................................................41
Kutki Picrorhiza kurrooa ..............................................................................................................................61
Red Sanders Pterocarpus santalinus ..........................................................................................................77
Snakeroot Rauvolfia serpentina ..................................................................................................................93
Himalayan Yew Taxus wallichiana ............................................................................................................113
Annexes
Annex 1: ISO country codes.....................................................................................................................137
Annex 2: ISO language codes .................................................................................................................140
Annex 3: Guide to information within tables on CITES-reported trade ....................................................141

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN) for funding this study, and particularly Dr Uwe Schippmann for his valuable inputs and support throughout the research and writing process, and Natalie Hofbauer for her assistance.
Special thanks are due to the TRAFFIC and IUCN staff who led research within Asia and the USA. The
breadth and depth of the information provided here is a direct reflection of their efforts: Xu Hongfa and Liu
Xueyan, TRAFFIC East Asia, Samuel Lee and Luan Xiaofeng, formerly of TRAFFIC East Asia, Julia Ng
Su-Chen and Noorainie Awang Anak, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Leigh Henry, TRAFFIC North America,
Giridhar Amatya, IUCN Nepal, Mahmood Akhtar Cheema and Abdul Latif Rao, IUCN Pakistan. Thanks
are also due to Pushp Jain, who led the work in India, and Dr Dagmar Lange, who led the work in Europe.
Our sincere thanks are also due to the very many individuals who provided information for this study
through responding to questionnaires, providing documents, participating in interviews and/or responding
to queries. This study would not have been possible without the generous provision of both their time andknowledge.
The authors are very grateful to the following CITES Management Authority staff for taking the time to review and provide their comments on drafts of the species accounts: Yuan Jiming, CITES Management
Authority, State Forestry Administration, China; Uday R. Sharma, PhD, Director General, Department ofForests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal; Manit Jaichagun, Acting Chief, International
Trade of Plants under Conventions Sub-division, CITES Management Authority of Thailand for Plants. We
are also grateful to John Caldwell and Harriet Gillett of the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
for providing assistance with access to and interpretation of CITES annual report data and informationfrom the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database.
Finally, the authors’ appreciation goes to TRAFFIC International staff Steven Broad, Julie Gray, Kim
Lochen and Sabri Zain for reviewing and commenting on specific sections of the report. Thanks also toAlex Douglass-Bonner, Tiina Rajamets, Frank Vargas and Jane Whitten for editorial support.

4

INTRODUCTION
Wild plant species form the foundation of healthcare practices throughout much of Asia. This is particularly
true in the case of traditional medicine practices, including codified systems such as traditional Chinese
medicine, Ayurveyda, Siddha, Unani and Tibetan medicines, and more localised healthcare traditions.
Asia’s wild plants also form a critical component of ‘modern’ healthcare practices. Compounds such as
reserpine from Snakeroot Rauvolfia serpentina and paclitaxel from Himalayan Yew Taxus wallichiana
have important pharmaceutical uses in Europe, North America and more widely. Some medicinal species
are also in demand for their aromatic properties, the use of the oil of Jatamansi Nardostachys grandiflora,
for example, appearing in written texts dating back over a thousand years. Still others, including Red
Sanders Pterocarpus santalinus, are also valued for their timber.
Wild plant species also form an important component of livelihood strategies in Asia, with wild collection of
medicinal and aromatic plants providing a critical source of income in many areas. This is particularly truein areas such as the high alpine regions of the Himalayas, where agricultural outputs are low and there
are few other opportunities for income generation.
The combined and in many cases increasing demand for Asia’s medicinal plants and the consequent increase in the rate of collection are having a negative impact on the wild populations of many species, tothe point that some species are now considered to be threatened with extinction. National governments
throughout the region have responded by establishing various systems of collection and trade controls tobring wild collection within sustainable levels. Governments, non-governmental organizations and in somecases the private sector have also begun investing in cultivation of certain species to meet demand. Inorder to help ensure that international trade was both sustainable and in accordance with national legislation, member countries of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) have also established international trade controls for some Asian medicinal species.
Earlier reviews of the status, wild collection and trade of a number of CITES-listed medicinal plant species, including those mentioned above, found that implementation of collection and trade controls was generally low,
and in some cases nearly non-existent. Not surprisingly, there were also indications of continuing declines inwild populations despite these regulatory efforts. In order to support efforts to improve the management andconservation of medicinal plant species in trade, in 2004, the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation(Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN) contracted TRAFFIC to undertake a study of the status, use, trade and tradecontrols for seven Asian species. Four of the seven, Elephant’s Foot Dioscorea deltoidea, Pterocarpus santalinus, Rauvolfia serpentina and Taxus wallichiana, had already been reviewed by BfN as a contribution to the
CITES Significant Trade Review process (SCHIPPMANN 2001). A further two, the Himalayan species Nardostachys grandiflora and Kutki Picrorhiza kurrooa, were previously reviewed by TRAFFIC under contract to
the CITES Secretariat, also as part of the CITES Significant Trade Review Process (MULLIKEN 2000). That
study also reviewed the trade in Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora, closely related and similar to Picrorhiza kurrooa and also referred to and traded as Kutki. The seventh, Desert Cistanche Cistanche deserticola, was listed
in CITES Appendix II in 2000 and has not been the subject of a previous review.
The present study was led by TRAFFIC, working with the Species Programme of IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Research support was provided by TRAFFIC offices in East Asia and Southeast Asia,
IUCN offices in Nepal and Pakistan, and independent consultants. Members of the IUCN/SSC Medicinal
Plant Specialist Group and other experts generously contributed information. The text of MULLIKEN (2000)
and SCHIPPMANN (2001) was used as the starting point for the study, with researchers seeking to augment
and update this information through a combination of literature reviews and web-based information
searches, expert interviews and compilation and analysis of CITES annual report and Customs data.
A summary of the overall findings of this research, based on a comparison of information available foreach of the seven species, is presented (MULLIKEN & SCHIPPMANN), followed by detailed assessments forthe individual species. The individual species accounts begin with information on the species’ taxonomy,
description, distribution, status and threats. This is followed by a review of available information on thespecies’ medicinal and other uses, harvest and processing, cultivation, national markets and international
trade. Available information on illegal trade is presented, followed by a discussion of national and international trade controls for the species. A brief overall analysis of the situation with regard to the species’
status and trade is provided as concluding text, followed by possible next steps that might be taken by
governments, particularly within range States, to address concerns identified. A list of country codes andof abbreviations used to describe the origin of trade names are provided as annexes.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species5It is hoped that this information will be useful to national governments, non-governmental organizations
working in the fields of conservation and development, and businesses concerned with the harvest, use
and trade of medicinal plants. More importantly, it is hoped that it will support efforts to manage harvest
and trade in a way that conserves wild species and ecosystems while meeting the current and future development needs of the people most dependent on them.

6

METHODSThis study was led by TRAFFIC, working with the Species Programme of IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Significant research support was provided by TRAFFIC offices in East Asia and Southeast Asia, offices ofthe World Conservation Union (IUCN) in Nepal and Pakistan, and independent consultants. Members of the
IUCN/SSC Medicinal Plant Specialist Group and other experts also generously contributed information.
The species assessments build on the results of CITES significant trade reviews undertaken by
SCHIPPMANN (2001) for Elephant’s Foot Dioscorea deltoidea, Red Sanders Pterocarpus santalinus, Snakeroot Rauvolfia serpentina and Himalayan Yew Taxus wallichiana, and MULLIKEN (2000) for Jatamansi Nardostachys grandiflora and Kutki Picrorhiza kurrooa. The text of SCHIPPMANN (2001) and MULLIKEN (2000)
was used as the starting point for the study, with researchers seeking to augment and update this information through a combination of literature reviews and web-based information searches, expert interviews
and compilation and analysis of CITES annual report and Customs data. Such text was not available for
Desert Cistanche Cistanche deserticola, which was listed in CITES Appendix II in 2000 and has not been
the subject of a CITES significant trade review.
Text from SCHIPPMANN (2001), MULLIKEN (2000) and, in the case of C. deserticola, information available
from other sources, was incorporated into a questionnaire designed to facilitate identification of out-of-dateor otherwise inaccurate information and information gaps, and to address these. The questionnaires were
provided to IUCN and TRAFFIC colleagues leading research within Asia, who used them to solicit input
from other experts as well as to guide their own research. This included literature searches and expert
consultations within China, India, Nepal and Pakistan, consultation with experts, including government
staff, within these countries, consultation with government staff within Myanmar and Thailand, and webbased information searches.
Where the status of species has been reviewed making use of the IUCN Red List Criteria, the categories
arrived at as a result of those reviews and the version of the criteria used (1994, 2001) have been noted.
It is important to bear in mind that in some cases the reviews do not represent formal Red List assessments, and further, relate to only one part of the global population. Further information on the Red List
can be found on www.redlist.org.
Data on international trade reported by CITES Parties (CITES annual report data) were obtained from theUNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, which maintains this information on behalf of the CITES
Secretariat. These are presented in the form of “comparative tabulations”, which allow comparison of tradereported by exporting/re-exporting Parties with that reported by importing Parties. When considering thesedata it is important to bear in mind that discrepancies in trade reporting by different countries, for example
reporting of the source of specimens in trade, may give the appearance that different shipments are involved when this is not the case. In addition, Parties often report exports based on the date of permit issuance; however, CITES export permits can be valid for up to six months, with the result that they may be
issued and reported on in one year by the exporting Party, but not reported on until the following year by
the importing Party. A guide to interpretation of CITES annual report data can be found on the UNEPWCMC website at www.unep-wcmc.org/citestrade/docs/Guide_v.6.0.pdf. A guide to the information contained within the CITES data tables is provided in Annex 2.
Customs data compiled and maintained by national governments are generally not sufficiently detailed to
identify trade in particular medicinal species. Customs data for India represent an exception to this rule,and contain information on imports and exports of several of the species covered by this study. These
data were obtained from the website maintained by the Government of India’s Export Import Data Bank,
Department of Commerce (http://dgft.delhi.nic.in). Customs data were also available and reviewed withregard to exports of Nardostachys grandiflora from Nepal.
Information on the value of harvests and trade is provided in original currency where this was available,with US dollar figures also provided, based on the conversion rate for the year to which the data relate,when this was known. In cases where the year for a particular figure was not provided, the conversion rateused was that for the year of publication. Currency data were not adjusted for inflation.
The species assessments were produced from this information by the authors, with ongoing consultation
with colleagues where clarification was required. Drafts of individual species assessments were sent to
CITES Management Authorities of key exporting range States for review, and also made available during
the 16th meeting of the CITES Plants Committee (July 2006). A full set of draft assessments was also
provided to the CITES Secretariat for review. Review comments were gratefully received from the Management Authorities of China, Nepal and Thailand.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

7

The information provided herein reflects the hard work of Dr Uwe Schippmann and Asia-based IUCN and
TRAFFIC colleagues and other experts who were willing to give so generously of their time and information. They deserve full credit for the breadth and depth of information in this report. Any errors of fact orinterpretation remain the sole responsibility of the authors.

8

CITES Medicinal Plant Species in Asia - Treasured Past, Threatened Future?

CITES MEDICINAL PLANT SPECIES IN ASIA – TREASURED PAST, THREATENED FUTURE?
Introduction
Wild plant species form the foundation of healthcare practices throughout much of Asia. This is particularly
true in the case of traditional medicine practices, including codified systems such as traditional Chinese
medicine, Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani and Tibetan medicines, and more localised healthcare traditions.
Asia’s wild plants also form a critical component of ‘modern’ healthcare practices. Compounds such as
reserpine from Snakeroot Rauvolfia serpentina and paclitaxel from Himalayan Yew Taxus wallichiana
have important pharmaceutical uses in Europe, North America and more widely. Some medicinal species
are also in demand for their aromatic properties, the use of the oil of Jatamansi Nardostachys grandiflora,
for example, appearing in written texts dating back over a thousand years. Still others, including Red
Sanders Pterocarpus santalinus, are also valued for their timber.
Wild plant species also form an important component of livelihood strategies in Asia, with wild collection of
medicinal and aromatic plants providing a critical source of income in many areas. This is particularly truein areas such as the high alpine regions of the Himalayas, where agricultural outputs are low and there
are few other opportunities for income generation.
The combined and in many cases increasing demand for Asia’s medicinal plants and the consequent increase in the rate of collection are having a negative impact on the wild populations of many species, tothe point that some species are now considered to be threatened with extinction. National governments
throughout the region have responded by establishing various systems of collection and trade controls tobring wild collection within sustainable levels. Governments, non-governmental organisations and in somecases the private sector have also begun investing in cultivation of certain species to meet demand. Inorder to help ensure that international trade was both sustainable and in accordance with national legislation, member countries of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) have also established international trade controls for some Asian medicinal species.
Earlier reviews of the status, wild collection and trade of a number of CITES-listed medicinal plant species,
including those mentioned above, found that implementation of collection and trade controls was generally
low, and in some cases nearly non-existent. Not surprisingly, there were also indications of continuing declines in wild populations despite these regulatory efforts. In order to support efforts to improve the management and conservation of medicinal plant species in trade, in 2004, the German Federal Agency for
Nature Conservation (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN) contracted TRAFFIC to undertake a study of thestatus, use, trade and trade controls for seven Asian species (Table 1). Four of the seven, Elephant’s Foot
Dioscorea deltoidea, Pterocarpus santalinus, Rauvolfia serpentina and Taxus wallichiana, had alreadybeen reviewed by BfN as a contribution to the CITES Significant Trade Review process (SCHIPPMAN
2001). A further two, the Himalayan species Nardostachys grandiflora and Kutki Picrorhiza kurrooa, werepreviously reviewed by TRAFFIC under contract to the CITES Secretariat, also as part of the CITES Significant Trade Review Process (MULLIKEN 2000). That study also reviewed the trade in Neopicrorhiza
scrophulariiflora, closely related and similar to Picrorhiza kurrooa and also referred to and traded as Kutki.
The seventh, Desert Cistanche Cistanche deserticola, was listed in CITES Appendix II in 2000 and has
not been the subject of a previous review.
The present study was led by TRAFFIC, working with the Species Programme of IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Research support was provided by TRAFFIC offices in East Asia and Southeast Asia, IUCN
offices in Nepal and Pakistan, and independent consultants. Members of the IUCN/SSC Medicinal Plant
Specialist Group and other experts generously contributed information. The text of MULLIKEN (2000) and
SCHIPPMAN (2001) was used as the starting point for the study, with researchers seeking to augment andupdate this information through a combination of literature reviews and web-based information searches,
expert interviews and compilation and analysis of CITES annual report and Customs data. The resulting
document, Review of the Status, Harvest, Trade and Management of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal
and Aromatic Plant Species (MULLIKEN & CROFTON, this volume) is published by BfN as part of the BfN Skripten series and available in hard copy from BfN and electronically from the BfN and TRAFFIC websites.
Although the number of species studied was small, their diversity in terms of life forms, use and trade provides a useful basis from which to consider issues associated with Asia’s medicinal plant trade more
broadly. The following presents some of the overall findings based on a comparison of information available for the various species. Recommendations for addressing what appear to be generic problems associated with management of medicinal plant collection and trade, particularly in South Asia, are also provided.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

9Table 1. CITES-listed medicinal plant species included in this review
Taxa/life form

Distribution/habitat

Main part(s) used
medicinally

Entry into effect of CITES
listing; annotation at timeof writing*Desert Cistanche Cistanche deserticola (perennial
parasitic herb)

China, Mongolia

Stems

19 July 2000
Annotation #1

Elephant’s Foot Dioscoreadeltoidea (deciduous perennial with annual climbing stem)

Afghanistan, Bhutan,
Cambodia, China, India,
Lao PDR, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand, Viet Nam

Rhizomes

01 July 1975
Annotation #1

Jatamansi Nardostachys
grandiflora (perennialherb)Afghanistan (?), China,
Bhutan, India, Myanmar(?), Nepal, Pakistan (?)

Rhizomes

18 September 1997
Annotation #3

Kutki Picrorhiza kurrooa(perennial herb)

India and Pakistan

Rhizomes

18 September 1997
Annotation #3

Red Sanders Pterocarpus
santalinus (tree)

China (?), India, Pakistan(?), Philippines (?), Sri
Lanka (?), Taiwan (?)

Wood

16 February 1995
Annotation #7

Snakeroot Rauvolfia serpentina (small, evergreen
perennial, semi-shrub)

Bangladesh, Bhutan,
China, Indonesia, India,
Lao PDR, Malaysia,
Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan(?), Sri Lanka, Thailand,
Viet Nam

Roots

18 January 1990
Annotation #2

Himalayan Yew Taxus
wallichiana (small evergreen tree or shrub)

Afghanistan, Bhutan,
China, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Viet Nam

Bark and leaves

16 February 1995
Annotation #10

Annotation #1 designates “all parts and derivatives, except: a) seeds, spores and pollen (including pollinia); b) seedling or tissue
cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers; and c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants”.
Annotation #2 designates “all parts and derivatives, except a) seeds and pollen; b) seedlings or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in
solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers; c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants; and d) chemical derivatives andfinished pharmaceuticals”.
Annotation #7 designates “logs, wood-chips and unprocessed broken material”.
Annotation #10: designates “all parts and derivatives except: a) seeds and pollen; and b) finished pharmaceutical products”.
* A proposal to amend the CITES annotations for these species was accepted by the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to CITES (June 2007). As of 13 September 2007, the annotation for Cistanche deserticola, Nardostachys grandiflora, Picrorhiza
kurrooa, Rauvolfia serpentina and Taxus wallichiana is Annotation #2: "Designates all parts and derivatives except: a) seeds andpollen; and b) finished products packaged and ready for retail trade”, and will take effect in September 2007. The annotation for Dioscorea deltoidea is now Annotation #1: “Designates all parts and derivatives, except: a) seeds, spores and pollen (including pollinia);b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers; c) cut flowers of artificially
propagated plants; and d) fruits and parts and derivatives thereof of artificially propagated plants of the genus Vanilla." The annotation for Pterocarpus santalinus is Annotation #7:“Designates logs, wood-chips, powder and extracts."

Key findings
There is a growing body of work related to the use and trade of medicinal plants in Asia, with numerous
NGOs, academics, government and intergovernmental agencies supporting and/or undertaking research.
However, wider understanding of the domestic and international trade continues to rely primarily on the
results of studies by NGOs and academics, with much of the work being very site specific. As a result, theinformation on both the species and trade is patchy. Research efforts appear to have been greatest in Nepal and India, with less work identified in other countries.
Status and threats
Somewhat surprisingly given their commercial importance and concerns regarding population declines,
information on the status of the species throughout their range was generally limited. Information on declines and rarity appeared to be based largely on expert opinion, sometimes developed via Conservation
Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshops organised by members of the IUCN/SSC Medicinal Plant Specialist Group. Population surveys appeared to be limited to a small number of sites, with little

10

CITES Medicinal Plant Species in Asia - Treasured Past, Threatened Future?

evidence of more widespread surveys to determine the status of the species at either the country or the
global level. This situation can be explained in part by the vast size and remoteness of the species’ habitats. For example, the appropriately named Cistanche deserticola is found in arid areas in China andMongolia, while Nardostachys grandiflora, Picrorhiza kurrooa and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora occur
across large areas of the alpine Himalaya.
Based on the information that is available, it appears that all seven species have declined in the wild owing to over-collection to supply domestic and foreign medicinal markets. As a result, all are also considered to be threatened with extinction in at least parts of their range, although only one, the tree species
Pterocarpus santalinus, has thus far been reviewed and classified as globally threatened (Endangered) in
the IUCN Red List. In some cases, P. santalinus being one example, the threat of harvest for medicinaluse appears to be secondary to that of harvest for other uses, e.g. timber and dyes. In only one case, thatof Cistanche deserticola, a parasitic plant, was collection from the wild not considered the primary threat;
here, the main threat was use of the host species, the trees Haloxylon ammodendron and H. persicum, fortimber, fuelwood and fodder.
Medicinal and other uses
All seven species are used in traditional medicines domestically and to some extent regionally. Several
species are used in more than one traditional medicine system. Kutki, for example, is listed in the Hamdard Pharmacopoeia of Eastern Medicine (Qarabadain-e-Hamdard), is used in Ayurveydic preparations,traditional Chinese medicine, and traditional Tibetan medicine. Three species are also used in western
pharmaceutical products. Dioscorea deltoidea and Taxus wallichiana are exploited as a source of compounds first identified and extracted from other species in the two genera. Paclitaxel, more widely known
by the trade name Taxol®, was first extracted from the North American species Pacific Yew Taxus brevifolia. The compound, used in treating cancer, was subsequently identified in T. wallichiana prompting a
rapid increase in wild collection of the needles and bark of this Himalayan species for paclitaxel extraction.
Similarly, diosgenin, which is extracted from Dioscorea deltoidea, was first discovered and extracted from
Mexican Dioscorea species, one of the major uses of this compound being for the production of oral contraceptives. By contrast, Rauvolfia serpentina appears to have been the main initial source of the alkaloid
reserpine, a compound used to treat hypertension among other ailments, and which is now also extracted
from other Rauvolfia species, e.g. the African species R. vomitoria. It is possible that extracts from
Picrorhiza kurrooa will soon join the list of medicinal plant-based pharmaceuticals, with phase three clinical trials underway in India for treatment of liver disorders.
All but one of the species (Cistanche deserticola) have multiple uses. The two tree species are valued fortheir timber, Taxus wallichiana for its resistance to rot, and Pterocarpus santalinus for its deep red colour andsometimes ‘wavy’ grain. The timber of P. santalinus is also used in powder and extract form as a dye, andthat of Taxus wallichiana as a source of fuelwood, with T. wallichiana leaves also providing a source of fodder. In Miandam Valley of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, T. wallichiana is one of the most valued
species for timber and fuelwood, with collection from the wild considered to be causing rapid population declines and to threaten the forest habitat upon which other medicinal plants depend (ADNAN et al. 2006).
While not a tree species itself, the reliance of Cistanche deserticola on its host species means that it isalso impacted by harvest for timber, fuelwood and fodder. Nardostachys grandiflora, Picrorhiza kurrooa
and Pterocarpus santalinus are all used in incense. In the case of Nardostachys grandiflora, this may be
the main use, contrasting with Pterocarpus santalinus, where at present use in incense appears to be low,
though identified as having growth potential. The tubers of Dioscorea deltoidea are eaten as food (although this requires repeated washing and boiling to remove toxins), and used in the western Himalayas
to wash wool owing to their high saponin content. Only a single non-medicinal use was identified for Rauvolfia serpentina during this study - the species is planted in gardens in the Nepali Terai in the belief that
this will ward off snakes.
Wild collection and trade
Similar to the information on status, information on wild collection and trade of these and other Asian medicinal species is patchy at best. Wild collection and trade in Nepal appears to be the most welldocumented, with corresponding information for India being less comprehensive, although numerous sitespecific studies have been undertaken. This may be explained in part by the much larger size of the country, and the greater complexity of manufacturing and trading structures.
Wild collection typically involves the rural poor. Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora and Nardostachys grandiflora provide almost 50% of the total annual income from alpine medicinal plant collection in Nepal, withalpine collection of medicinal plants believed to form an integral part of the livelihood strategies of 7-10%
of Nepal’s mountain regions (considered a conservative estimate), or approximately 25 000 – 35 000 peo-

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

11ple (OLSEN & LARSEN 2003). In India, according to one estimate, collection and processing of medicinal
plants contribute at least 35 million workdays per year to the “poor and underemployed workforce” (ANON.
2001). Collection of medicinal plants also makes an important contribution to rural household incomes inparts of India, with Picrorhiza kurrooa collection considered particularly important in the tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh studied by NEGI & BHALLA (2002), who noted that most collectors were “small and marginal farmers”. Rauvolfia serpentina collection from the wild in Thailand and Myanmar was said to be undertaken on an opportunistic basis by local people, often at the same time they are collecting other forest
products. Information indicating a large-scale trade in R. serpentina from Myanmar to India, and an increase in processing within Myanmar in the mid-1990s, suggests that targeted collecting may also be taking place. In Pakistan, where Dioscorea deltoidea was said to be one of the main medicinal species collected in the mid-1990s, collection also involves the rural poor.
Although all of the species are collected for local use, in many areas the main reason to collect the species is to provide cash income and supply demand that may be hundreds to thousands of kilometres awayfrom collection areas: in the case of Taxus wallichiana the distance is potentially 10 000 km or more. The
path from wild collection to end market generally involves a complex trade chain, a typology of which has
been proposed by OLSEN & BHATTARAI (2005) for trade from Nepal to India. The journey often begins with
one or more days of walking from the site of collection to village, and then again from village to the nearest
roadhead. Based on available information, with regard to Himalayan species, most though not all roads
lead to India, which is both a major manufacturing centre and end consumer market. This is particularly
true of trade from Nepal, which is fed by hundreds of thousands of medicinal plant collectors supplying
raw materials through a multi-tiered system of middlemen leading to large-scale wholesalers in Nepal andIndia (OLSEN & BHATTARAI 2005). Raw materials are often transported on to large wholesale markets, e.g.
in Delhi, Amritsar and Kolkata (Calcutta) for onward sale. Alternatively, traders may work directly withpharmaceutical companies, providing them samples for product testing in advance of sales, for example in
the trade of Dioscorea deltoidea in India.
Those collecting for onward sale typically undertake little value added processing beyond cleaning and air
drying. In the case of Dioscorea deltoidea, collectors in India may chop the tubers into smaller pieces toaid drying before onward sale. There has been investment in promoting essential oil extraction, includingof Nardostachys grandiflora, for export from Nepal.
India at the centre. . .
As indicated above, available information indicates that India is a major destination for trade in the raw
medicinal plant materials, and apparently the major destination for all but two of the seven species in thisstudy; Cistanche deserticola, native to and primarily used in China, and possibly Taxus wallichiana, tradepatterns for which have changed in recent years.
India’s long and rich history of traditional medicine practices such as Ayurveda and highly developed
herbal and pharmaceutical products manufacturing industry combine with a potential domestic market ofover one billion consumers to drive the wild collection, import and export of thousands of tonnes of medicinal plants and products each year. Both finished products and extracts for production of pharmaceuticals are manufactured in India. Ayurvedic products produced in India are sold both in that country andaround the world, as are extracts such as reserpine and other Rauvolfia alkaloids, with exports of over
200 t recorded in India’s Customs data for the years 1999/2000 – 2003/2004.
A significant segment of India’s consumer and industrial demand continues to be met by national supplies
delivered both via and outside of a complex system of wild collection, transport and trade controls. All
supplies of Pterocarpus santalinus, native to India and, according to some authors, Sri Lanka, originate
from India, the proportion used within the country relative to exported being unknown. However, as noted
above, there is also a tremendous flow of raw materials to Indian markets from other Himalayan countries,
particularly Nepal, with imports also recorded from Southeast Asia. This includes hundreds of tonnes of
Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora and Nardostachys grandiflora rhizomes from Nepal and over 150 t of “serpentina roots” (most likely Rauvolfia serpentina) from Myanmar. Annual trade from Nepal to India of Dioscorea deltoidea has declined to less than ten tonnes in recent years, apparently as a result of increased
diosgenin production within and outside of India from other sources of raw materials. The flow of Taxus
wallichiana from Nepal to India similarly seems to have declined, reflecting in part increased extraction
capacity within Nepal, but potentially also increased competition from taxane production in China andelsewhere.

12

CITES Medicinal Plant Species in Asia - Treasured Past, Threatened Future?

. . . but China increasing in market share?
China is a major and growing manufacturing centre for medicinal extracts and finished products, including
taxanes. Until recently, China’s manufacture of taxanes was based on Taxus wallichiana and several
other Asian yew species native to China. However, all wild harvest of native yew species for taxane extraction in China was banned in 2003, with a consequent need to import increasing amounts of material
from other countries. CITES annual report data for China show major imports from Myanmar in 2003,
however this trade was not recorded in corresponding records for Myanmar. Increased emphasis within
China on cultivation, including of non-native species e.g. the hybrid Taxus x media (a hybrid of T. cuspidata and T. baccata) from Canada, may decrease raw material trade flows to this country in future. There
are indications that sales of Dioscorea spp. and production of diosgenin within India may be suffering fromimport competition from China, and it does not seem unlikely that similar competition could emerge for the
reserpine extraction industry. Bearing in mind its use in traditional Chinese medicine, it is not inconceivable that in future the flow of Picrorhiza/Neopicrorhiza supplies could shift to the north, particularly if theefficacy of Picrorhiza kurrooa in the treatment of liver disease is confirmed.
Wild collection versus cultivation
Cultivation is routinely promoted as the preferred (and sometimes the only) solution to the problem ofdwindling supplies and over-collection of wild medicinal plant populations, with investment into research
and/or associated cultivation efforts documented for all seven species covered by this study. Much lessemphasis is being put on development and promotion of sustainable wild collection practices (SCHIPPMAN
et al. 2006). Given the interest in cultivation, and the relative ease of collecting information on cultivation
versus wild collection, which is by nature more widely distributed, it might be expected that information on
the scale of cultivation of medicinal plant species would be readily accessible. This is not the case, however, the information is similarly scattered, site specific, and relatively inconclusive.
Cultivation is contributing an increasing share - possibly the majority - of pharmaceutical compounds extracted from Taxus, Dioscorea and Rauvolfia species; however, it appears that cultivation mainly involves
species other than those covered by this study. As noted above, for example, diosgenin can be extracted
from a number of Dioscorea species. In the case of Dioscorea deltoidea, for example, there is conflicting
information regarding the scale of cultivation; although it appears to be relatively easy to cultivate, cultivation was said to be unprofitable for farmers owing to the long growing time (several years) between planting and commercial harvest. At least one pharmaceutical company was said to be growing this species,
but also several non-native Dioscorea species, on a commercial basis in India. Cultivation within India,
and possibly imports of diosgenin from Dioscorea cultivated in China and Mexico, seems likely to belinked to reduced demand for wild-collected D. deltoidea from Nepal.
It seems likely that the role of cultivation in meeting pharmaceutical demand will continue to expand in future, including through the selection of cultivars producing higher concentrations of the target compounds.
Other technologies, e.g. plant cell fermentation technology, which is being used to produce paclitaxel, arealso likely to replace wild collection as a source of pharmaceutical products.
Cultivation is also increasing for species used primarily in traditional medicine. Although it was considereddifficult to cultivate until recently, owing to its life history strategy (being a parasitic species), an estimated60-70% of Cistanche deserticola is now said to come from the wild, with cultivation increasing rapidly andconsidered as likely to overtake wild collection. Efforts to cultivate Pterocarpus santalinus have been underway since at least the mid-1960s, however information varies with regard to whether cultivation efforts
have been successful, and it appears that the majority of trade is still met from wild-collected materials.
Further clarification is required on this point. Cultivation is in the early stages of development for Picrorhiza
kurrooa and Nardostachys grandiflora, although it appears to hold strong promise for Picrorhiza kurrooa,
which propagates well from root cuttings.
Wild collection and trade controls
Although the characteristics of wild collection, use and trade vary significantly among the seven species
covered by this study, characteristics of collection and trade controls appear to be relatively universal.
Wild collection for commercial trade, whether domestic or international, is highly regulated, generally involving a series of collection and transport permits. However, implementation of collection and trade controls is generally ineffective. It appears to be minimal and/or ineffective in Nepal, more active in India,
though illegal collection is believed to be widespread, and appears to be increasing in China. Exports arealso highly regulated and frequently banned, particularly of materials in unprocessed form. International
trade controls by both exporting and importing countries are also required through the species’ listing in
CITES Appendix II. All but Cistanche deserticola and Dioscorea deltoidea were included in Appendix II at
the request of the Government of India out of concern for the threat to its domestic populations. Thus far,

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

13

CITES controls have had little impact on the trade, both because the main products in trade for some species, e.g. extracts, are not currently covered by the Convention, and because implementation effort has
been low more generally. Of particular concern is the apparent lack of CITES implementation for imports
into India, a key consumer, with imports apparently not required to be accompanied by CITES export permits or recorded in India’s CITES annual reports. The February 2006 decision by the Government of India
to implement import controls for Rauvolfia spp. and several other species, including agarwood Aquilaria
spp. and cacti, indicates a shift towards more comprehensive CITES implementation in that country. The
only major evidence of successful CITES enforcement action relates to the trade in Pterocarpus santalinus timber, with numerous seizures reported within India and in destination countries.
The failure to implement either wild collection or trade controls seems likely to reflect the sheer enormity
and complexity of the medicinal plant collection and trade throughout the region, and the lower importancegiven to addressing issues of illegal or unsustainable collection of plants relative to animal species, particularly charismatic species such as Tigers. This pattern is repeated in the case of international trade,which takes place across long and porous borders with few staff resources to police them. The low level ofawareness among enforcement staff of trade controls for plant species, particularly plant species tradedas parts and derivatives, is a further contributing factor.
Discussion
Asia’s wild medicinal plant populations continue to play a central role in human healthcare. This is true
within Asia and more widely, within both rural and urban settings, and within traditional as well as modern
healthcare practices. In some areas, Asia’s medicinal plants also play a central role in income generation.
It is therefore both surprising and worrying that the status and trade of medicinal plants is so poorly studied, particularly in light of concerns that wild populations are declining as a result of increased demand
and unsustainable collection.
Though not well understood, wild collection and trade of Asia’s medicinal plants are nevertheless highly
regulated, with various government permissions and documents required for collection, transit and export.
The often low level of regulatory implementation helps explain the low availability of wild collection andtrade information - no permits issued and/or checked means no corresponding data collected.
The information that is available is nevertheless sufficient to conclude that traditional medicine, which consumes the majority of species in trade, relies on whole plant parts rather than single compounds and willcontinue to do so for the foreseeable future. For the majority of species, these plant parts are collectedfrom the wild. Further research is required to identify whether traditional medicine practitioners and/or
manufacturers have an established preference for wild-collected specimens of selected species, orwhether cultivated specimens would be considered equally acceptable or preferable if they were available
independent of the species concerned. Such information would be critical to informing investment inlonger term species management and rural development efforts.
While the total number of species involved is much lower, pharmaceutical production is consuming agreater share of medicinal plant harvest from the wild for some species. Cultivation of these species isincreasing, and increasingly likely to be preferred over wild collection for production of plant compounds
used in pharmaceutical products. However, commercial cultivation may not be possible or may be more
expensive in the short term, with the result that pharmaceutical production, like traditional medicine, willcontinue to depend on wild collection for many species.
Thus far the main management response to concerns about dwindling medicinal plant populations andsupplies has been to increase regulation and/or cultivation. This includes at the international level, e.g.
listings of species in the CITES Appendices and development agency investment in cultivation projects.
Relatively little effort has been made to identify and promote sustainable collection practices, or to increase the economic incentives to use such practices. Where cultivation is being promoted, it is not clear
whether and how the needs of those engaged in wild collection are taken into account, a problem noted
for non-wood forest products more generally over a decade ago by NAIR (1995), or what the consequent
impacts have been on collection rates.
A common response to this situation for other wildlife commodities is to invest more resources in enforcing
existing laws. However, consideration needs to be given to the effects of any such ‘crackdown’ on unlicensed collection or trade, particularly where this takes place in only part of a species’ range. Increased
enforcement in one location/country may simply shift collection to other locations/countries. Further, ruralcommunities dependent on wild collection for income may have little choice but to continue to collect medicinal species and risk detection, and so be at risk of increased “rent capture” by government personnel
charged with enforcement, and lower prices from those traders willing to circumvent existing controls. The
recent trend in some South Asian countries toward granting greater community rights over natural re-

14

CITES Medicinal Plant Species in Asia - Treasured Past, Threatened Future?

sources, particularly forest resources, should be considered in conjunction with regulatory approaches for
managing wild collection.
Summary and recommendations
Throughout much of human history, Asia’s medicinal plant species have simultaneously been treasured
and taken for granted. They have been available and used to treat the ills of countless generations, originally within Asia, and more recently throughout much of the rest of the world. Changes in current collection and trade practices will be required if these plants are to survive in the wild and continue to be available for use by future generations. Numerous authors and organisations with direct experience concerning
medicinal plant collection, use, trade and conservation in Asia have provided recommendations for promoting such changes (e.g. see BHATTARAI 1997, KARKI 2006, KINHAL et al. 2006, OLSEN 2005, OLSEN &LARSEN 2003, PEI SHENGJI 2001 and many others). Hopefully the suggestions below will serve to reinforce
their recommendations and encourage support for their and others’ efforts.
Given that many Asian species in trade both occur and are used in more than one country, a collaborative,
multi-country approach is likely to be both more efficient and more effective at achieving increased knowledge, conservation and sustainable use of these and other species in the longer term. Equally, given theimportance of medicinal plants in the context of conservation, development (including healthcare and income generation), and manufacturing, a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach is likely to be more effective and efficient than isolated efforts by different stakeholder groups.
All stakeholders with an interest in medicinal plant conservation, use and/or trade should work together
through, for example, the Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Programme in Asia (MAPPA), to share and increase collective knowledge of:•the species, origin and quantity of medicinal plant materials traded;•market trends, including with respect to the preferred source (wild, cultivated) of specimens in trade;•the current population status of traded species nationally and globally, and observed or suspected
population trends;•

current wild collection practices (all uses), including extraction methods and intensity, and their impacts, including with respect to re-generation rates;•

the actors in the trade, building on the work of OLSEN & BHATTARAI (2003) to develop a typology of
economic agents for trade from Nepal to India;•

the contribution of medicinal plants to healthcare and incomes along the trade chain from collector toend consumer, differentiating with respect to, e.g. gender, age and socio-economic status; and•successful mechanisms to increase the value of medicinal plant collection to the rural and urban poor.

Government agencies, IGOs, NGOs and medicinal manufacturers and associations should promote conservation of wild populations and sustainable sourcing by:•adopting and adhering to codes of practice for sustainable sourcing of wild medicinal plants, including
CITES and the International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants(ISSC-MAP) (MPSG 2007)•

undertaking resource mapping to underpin development of site-based management plans;•

developing, with collectors, training materials and programmes appropriate for spreading of knowledge of sustainable collection techniques;•

exploring the potential for increasing production in situ, e.g. via enrichment planting; and•when developing cultivation programmes, taking into account the potential for and reducing the possibility of hybridization of cultivated specimens with wild plants.

Governments should seek to increase collaboration in the enforcement of controls on international trade,including through:•increased information exchange concerning national level trade restrictions, including through joint
capacity building programmes and provision of copies of any documents required to accompany shipments exported;•

increased investment in CITES implementation for CITES-listed medicinal species;

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

15•

ensuring that any bilateral trade agreements, such as the Indo-Nepal treaty, are consistent with otherinternational obligations, e.g. CITES, with respect to international trade controls; and•developing more detailed Customs codes for species traded in large quantities, including, within India,
the re-adoption of codes previously used for Pterocarpus santalinus chips and timber and Rauvolfia
serpentina formulations.

References
ADNAN, S.M., KHAN, A.A. & Z.K. SHIWARI (2006): Threats to the sustainability of ethno-medicinal uses inNorthern Pakistan (A case study of Miandam Valley, District Swat, NWFP Province, Pakistan). –Lyonia 11(2): 79-88. Retrieved from: http://www.lyonia.org/downloadPDF.php?pdfID=2.494.1,
viewed 25.1.2007).
ANON. (2001): Smuggling: Madurai and beyond. – Down to Earth 31 January: 28-41.
BHATTARAI, N.K. (1997): Biodiversity-people interface in Nepal. – In: BODEKER, G., K.K.S. BHAT, J. BURLEY& P. VANTOMME (Eds.): Medicinal Plants for Forest Conservation and Health Care. Non-wood Forest Products 11: 78-86, (FAO) Rome, Italy.
KARKI, M. (2006): Community driven medicinal plants conservation: Wise practices from South Asia. – In:
MITHTHAPALA, S. (Ed.) (2006). Conserving medicinal species. Securing a healthy future. pp. 95103, IUCN Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group, Asia, Colombo.
KINHAL, G.A., RAO, J.R. & A. LAWRENCE (2006): A methodological template for participatory planning anddesigning for sustainable harvesting of medicinal plants. – In: MITHTHAPALA, S. (Ed.). Conserving
medicinal species. Securing a healthy future. pp. 147-157, IUCN Ecosystems and Livelihoods
Group, Asia, Colombo.
MPSG (2007): International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants.
Version 1.0. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn (BfN-Skripten 195).
MULLIKEN, T. (2000): Implementing CITES for Himalayan medicinal plants Nardostachys grandiflora andPicrorhiza kurrooa. – TRAFFIC Bulletin 18 (2): 63-72.
MULLIKEN, T. & P. CROFTON (this volume): Review of the status, harvest, trade and management of seven
Asian CITES-listed Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Species. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn.
NAIR, C.T.S. (1995): Income and employment from non-wood forest products: What do we know? – In:
DURST, P. & BISHOP A. (Eds.) (2006): Beyond timber: Social, economic and cultural dimensions of
non-wood forest products in Asia and the Pacific. pp. 87-96, FAO Regional Office for Asia and thePacific, Bangkok.
NEGI, Y.S. & P. BHALLA (2002): Collection and marketing of important medicinal and aromatic plants intribal areas of Himachal Pradesh. – Indian Forester 128 (6): 641-649.
OLSEN, C.S. (2005): Trade and conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants: Nardostachys grandiflora DC.
and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennel) Hong. – Biological Conservation 125 (4): 505-514.
OLSEN, C.S. & N. BHATTARAI (2005): A typology of economic agents in the Himalayan plant trade. – Mountain Research and Development 25 (1): 37-43.
OLSEN, C.S. & H.O. LARSEN (2003): Alpine medicinal plant trade and Himalayan mountain livelihood
strategies. – The Geographical Journal 169 (3): 243-254.
PEI SHENGJI (2001): Ethnobotanical approaches of traditional medicine studies: some experiences from
Asia. Pharmaceutical Botany 39: 74-79.
SCHIPPMAN, U. (2001): Medicinal plants significant trade study. CITES project S-109. Plants Committee
Document PC9 9.1.3 (rev.). – 97 pp., Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn (BfN-Skripten 39).
SCHIPPMAN, U., LEAMAN, D. & A.B. CUNNINGHAM (2006): A comparison of cultivation and wild collection of
medicinal and aromatic plants under sustainability aspects. - In: BOGERS, R.J., CRAKER, L.E. &LANGE, D. (Eds.): Medicinal and aromatic plants. Agricultural, commercial, ecological, legal, pharmacological and social aspects. pp. 75-95, Springer, Dordrecht (Wageningen UR Frontis Series 17).
Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/frontis/medicinal_aromatic_plants/06_schippmann.pdf, viewed:
6.12.2006.

16

Cistanche deserticola

Cistanche deserticola
Taxonomy

Cistanche deserticola Y.C. MA (family Orobanchaceae)

Synonyms

Cistanche ambigua G. BECK (BUNGE)

Trade names

Dan dan yu (chi), Dayun (chi), Desert Living Cistanche (eng), Herba Cistanches (latin,chi), Roucongrong (chi), Suosuo dayun (chi), Woestijnasperge (nld) (ANON. 2005a, LEE inlitt. 2005).

Description. Perennial parasitic herb, parasitic primarily on the roots of Haloxylon ammodendron and
H. persicum (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). Stems fleshy, yellow, 10-45 cm high. Leaves scale-shaped,
yellow-brown, imbricated, ovate or ovate lanceolate, denser on lower part. Spikes 5-20 cm long, about 5
cm wide, flowers many and dense, bracts ovate lanceolate, 1.5 cm long; bracteoles two, narrowlanceolate, nearly as long as calyx; calyx campanulate, five-lobed, segments nearly round; perianth nearlylabial, 5-divided at apex, segments blue-purple, tubular parts white; stamens four, hairy on anthers and atbase of filaments; ovary four-celled. Capsules elliptic, two-lobed, styles persistent (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA
2000).
Distribution. China, Mongolia.
East Asia, China and Mongolia (FU & JIAN-MING 1992). In China, it occurs in the provinces of Gansu,
Shaanxi, Qinghai, and the autonomous regions of Xingjiang, Ningxia and Inner Mongolia. The species
primarily grows in Xingjiang Autonomous Region (Fuhai, Habahe, Fuwen, Chabuchaer, Jinghe, Wushu,
Jumushaer, Qitai, Bole, Fukang, Manasi, Hebukeseer, Huocheng, Hutubi), Inner Mongolia Autonomous
Region (Alashanzuoqi, Ejinaqi, Alashanyouqi, Wulatehouqi), Qinghai province (Haile, Hainan), and Gansu
province (Wuwei, Zhangye, Jiuquan), Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (Zhongwei, Lingwu, Yanci)(GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). Found in Shaanxi (TAN & al. 2004). C. deserticola grows in desert areas offine sandy, slightly acidic soil, at elevations of 225-1150 m (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). It is found on thehigh plains of Alxa, the Qaidam Basin, the Nomin Gobi, the Hashun Gobi, the eastern part of the Tarim
Basin and the Junggar Basin, and in the Haloxylon deserts in southern Mongolia (ANON. 2002).
Its range is determined by distribution of the host plant Haloxylon ammodendron (ANON. 1995a), the only
suitable habitat considered to be natural woodland of the host species (ZHAO RUN-HUAI in litt. 2005).
C. deserticola occurs over a wide area, however its distribution area has declined (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA
2000); C. deserticola was considered to occur in 30-40% of Inner Mongolia in the 1950s compared to 5%
in the 1980s (ANON. 1995b).
Population status and threats. The species is not included in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006). In the
Action Plan for Plants of the Chinese Region it is listed as a “seriously threatened valuable medicinal
plant” (WANG & YANG in press). It is classified as “critically endangered” in The China Species Red List
(WANG & XIE 2004), with an estimated 80% decline owing to harvest for medicinal use, cutting of the hostplant for fuelwood and overgrazing of the host plant by camels. China’s CITES Scientific Authority
described the species as “endangered” owing to these same threats (ANON. 2002).
Populations are declining in Gansu, Xingjiang and Inner Mongolia (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). The
species is reported to have become very scarce in Inner Mongolia as reflected by substantial declines inannual collection rates over the last 20-30 years (TU & al. 1994). The species is most abundant in
Xingjiang, followed by Inner Mongolia (MENG ZHIBIN in litt. 2005). The main area of collection in Inner
Mongolia is Alxa League in the west (ZHAO RUN-HUAI in litt. 2005). The greatest losses occur near
population centres from which people can easily reach the desert to collect the species (PENG & XU 1995),
e.g. residential areas in Inner Mongolia and Xingjiang (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). In Shanxi and
Shaanxi, the species’ populations are considered to have been reduced to the point that production nolonger takes place (TAN & al. 2004).
No survey data documenting changes in the species’ population size or distribution were identified(IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC 2004), and regular population monitoring was not being undertaken when thespecies was proposed for inclusion in Appendix II (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). MENG ZHIBIN (in litt. 2005)
noted that various estimates of existing stock had been produced, but that the methodologies used to
produce these estimates had not been made available. Further, such stock estimates may vary dependingon whether the intention is to encourage development of new factories, when the abundance of theresource is emphasised, or overseas investment in cultivation, when shortages are emphasised. The total
stock within Xingjiang and Inner Mongolia has been estimated at 5000 t and 400 t respectively (MENG
ZHIBIN in litt. 2005).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

17Overharvesting is considered the primary threat to the species (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). Livestock
grazing, agro-industry farming, clear-cutting and collection of the host species H. ammodendron for wood
are reported as additional threats (ZHANG 2005). PENG & XU (1995) suggested that the loss of H.
ammodendron is the major threat. MENG ZHIBIN (2005) noted that this species is used as fuelwood. Its
woody stem and branches burn well, being referred to as “coal of the desert” and are also used by local
people for building materials. Further, the tender branches are used as camel feed in the winter and spring(FU & JIAN-MING 1992, PENG & XU 1995). Between the late 1950s and the early 1960s, H. ammodendron
covered 1 127 000 ha, supporting an annual collection of about 800 t of Cistanche deserticola, but by thelate 1960s this area had been reduced by approximately 50%, and further reductions have taken place
subsequently (FAN 2001). H. ammodendron is listed as “vulnerable” in the China Plant Red Data Book (FU& JIAN-MING 1992).
Medicinal uses
Plant parts used for medicinal purposes: Dried stems.
The primary plant part used is the underground stem. In its dried form, it is referred to as ‘Herba
Cistanches’. Herba Cistanches was described in the oldest surviving Chinese herb classic, Shennong
Bencao Jing (ca. 100 A.D.) and has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for several thousand years
to treat a wide variety of conditions such as kidney problems, constipation, impotence, and infertility(IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC 2000, ZHANG 2005). One of the oldest formulas containing Cistanche is an antiaging pill known as “Jichuanjian” (ZHANG 2005). The species was often used alongside other ancient
Chinese medicines, such as blood tonic, lubricants, energy supplements and kidney nourishments (ZHANG
2005). C. deserticola is advertised for sale both as a single ingredient and as mixed formulations in China,
Hong Kong, the UK and the USA (IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC 2004). When included in tablets, powders andtonics, C. deserticola is variously referred to as “Cistanche” or “Rou Cong Rong”. ZHAO & al. (2002) haveidentified over 100 different tonics and tablets containing the species. In Hong Kong alone, at least 42
different brands of proprietary Chinese medicinal products containing parts or derivatives of this species
are available (CHU & LEE unpublished).
In Japan and Taiwan, C. deserticola is used as a tonic for kidney deficiency syndromes, including blurredvision, dizziness, poor memory, and palpitation, though it is mainly promoted as a treatment for impotence
and constipation (ELLIS 2003, ZHANG 2005, ZHU & LUO 2000).
Twenty chemical compounds have been isolated from C. deserticola for their medicinal properties (TU
2000). It has been suggested that phenylethanoid glycosides isolated from Cistanche can be used for
manufacturing drugs/health supplements for anti-aging (ZHU & LUO 2000).
Drug description: Compressed-cylindrical, slightly curved, 3-15 cm long, 2-8 cm in diameter. Externallybrown or greyish-brown, densely covered with imbricate fleshy scales, usually the apex of scales broken.
Texture heavy, hard and slightly flexible, unbreakable, fractured surface brown and showing brownish
dotted vascular bundles, arranged in wavy rings. Odour slight; taste sweetish and bitterish (GOVERNMENT
OF CHINA 2000).
Other uses. In Japan, the species is used to treat hair loss. Researchers in that country have started to
extract the chemical compounds (cistanoside) from C. deserticola to produce drugs that treat impotence,for use in cosmetics and for treating hair loss (ZHU & LUO 2000).
Harvest and processing. C. deserticola is currently produced in Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, Xinjiang, andInner Mongolia (TAN & al. 2004). Information varies regarding the time of harvest. According to XU HONGFA(in litt. 2005), experienced collectors search the ground around the host tree and dig out the fleshy
underground stem, which is the primary part used, prior to the stem emerging above ground in the spring.
This results in a higher quality drug. Others concur that the desirable part is collected in spring before
sprouting, cut into sections and dried in the sun (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA (2000) and WU & ZHANG (1993)).
Underground stems are also harvested after the stem has emerged, with the above ground parts thenremoved (XU HONGFA in litt. 2005). FAN (2001) and ZHAO RUN-HUAI (in litt. 2005) state that the stems are
harvested between March and May, when the stem emerges from the soil and starts flowering, after
growing underground for three years on the root of the host plant. After collection, regeneration of thestem can occur provided that the plant has not been dug up entirely and the point of attachment with theroot of the host is not damaged (ANON. 1995a, ZHAO RUN-HUAI in litt. 2005).
The fresh stems are usually dried in the sun or processed with salt; sometimes they are sweetened,
fermented or steamed (MENG ZHIBIN in litt. 2005). Medicinal plant collection and distribution centres sell
the species on to national manufacturing companies. These companies, common in every major city in
China, manufacture tablets approved for domestic use in, for instance, hospitals, and for export.
18

Cistanche deserticola

Estimates of prior and current harvest quantities vary. ZHU (1990) considered that total harvests of Herba
Cistanches might be as high as 7000 t in 1990; it is unclear whether this estimate includes other
Cistanche species in addition to C. deserticola. TAN & al. (2004) provide much lower estimates, estimating
annual production at 800 t in the 1950s, falling to 300 t by the end of 1980s (FAN 2001 gives a figure of
300 t in the early 1980s), and to around 120 t in 1994. Annual production in Inner Mongolia is believed tohave decreased significantly during the past 20 to 30 years, and in 2002 was estimated at 70 t. In the
1980s, annual harvest in Xingjiang was estimated at 300 t (ANON. 1995b). Production in North Xingjiang
was estimated at 50 t in 2002 (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000).
Organized collection was estimated to involve “several thousand” people at the end of the twentiethcentury, and more recently, “more than ten thousand” (SUN & al. 2003). Collectors often target only thisspecies. Harvesters are local to the harvest areas and include professional harvesters. They obtain amaximum of 20% of the value, whilst middlemen receive 30-40% and manufacturers and dealers at theother end of the trade chain some 40% (ZHANG 2005). The species is sold in wholesale medicine markets
in each of the Chinese provinces (ZHANG 2005).
Cultivation. Cultivation of Cistanche in China began in 1985 and by 1991 involved an area of 500 ha(LUO & al. 2002). The cultivation area was extended to 1334 ha in 1993, but the actual production volume
was very low (TU & al. 1994). TAN & al. (2004) estimate 2001-2002 yields of cultivated Cistanche
deserticola at 1000 t (dry weight). C. deserticola is reported to be cultivated in Xingjiang, but not in large
quantities (TU & al. 1994). Three cultivation plots in Alashan, Xinjiang have yields as follows: 1167 ha 0.25 kg/ha, 2120 ha - 0.25 kg/ha; and 700 ha - 0.34 kg/ha. The total yield from the three plots is one tonne(dry weight) (TAN & al. 2004). The species has been artificially propagated in Inner Mongolia, at the
Arashanqi Cistanche Experiment Station, but limited adoption of the technique was noted (GOVERNMENT
OF CHINA 2000). Cultivation is difficult as the species’ host plant, Haloxylon ammodendron, is hard tocultivate and it takes time before specimens are large enough for Cistanche deserticola to grow on theirroots (LEE in litt. 2005). According to TAN & al. (2004), in order to make cultivation successful, inoculation
techniques need to be improved. All plant material exported from China has been reported by China to
CITES as being of wild origin; importing countries have reported 540 kg as being from cultivated sources,
however. According to TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (in litt. 2006), 60-70% of C. deserticola is harvested from thewild, however, cultivation is increasing rapidly and it is believed that it might replace wild harvesting in the
future. According to CAO & WU (2004), the chemical constituents isolated from cultivated C. deserticola are
the same as those from wild species.
National market. According to the Pharmacopeia of China, Herba Cistanches refers only to the species
C. deserticola. However, other Cistanche species are also traded as Herba Cistanches, and are often
mixed together (Table 1) (ANON. 1995a, 1995b).
Table 1. Species traded as Herba Cistanches
Species

Reference MENG ZHIBIN
in litt. 2005

C. ambigua

xC. deserticolax

C. fissax

C. lanzhouensisx

C. salsax

HE & SHI 1995 LUO & al.
2002

TU & al. 1994

YIN & al. 2002

ZHANG & al.
2001

x

x

x

x
x

x

x
x

x
x

C. salsa var.
albiflora
C. sinensisx

Not used as
medicine

C. tubulosa

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x
x

x

x

Noting the lack of information regarding the species and the technical difficulty in identifying the species intrade, China’s CIT*ES Management Authority considers that information on the trade in this species
actually reflects the trade in all species/subspecies in the genus Cistanche, rather than just C. deserticola(YUAN JIMING in litt. 2006).
The species, C. ambigua (BUNGE) G. BECK, C. fissa (C.A. MEY.) G. BECK, C. lanzhouensis ZHI Y. ZHANG,
C. tubulosa (SCHENK), C. salsa (C.A. MEY.) G. BECK, C. salsa var. albiflora (P.F. TU & Z.C. LOU) andC. sinensis G. BECK parasitize different, more abundant host species such as Tamarix ramosissima,
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

19T. arcenthoides, Kalidium foliatum, Reaumuria soongorica and Nitraria sibirica (IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC
2004, LUO & al. 2002, MENG ZHIBIN in litt. 2005, TU & al. 1994, YIN & al. 2002, ZHANG & al. 2001). Species
in other genera, e.g. Boschniakia rossica (CHAM. & SCHLTDL) B. FEDTSCH. (known as Cao Cong Rong,
Grass Cistanche), are also said to be traded as substitutes (HE & SHI 1995).
In 1995, annual demand within China was estimated at between 450 t and 550 t (ANON. 1995a, 1995c). In
2002, demand was believed to be increasing in response to improved standards of living within China anda coinciding increase in demand for tonics (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). More recently, annual demand
for Cistanche within China was estimated at around 3500 t (TAN & al. 2004).
Wholesale prices of Herba Cistanches are reported to have increased from CNY32-45/kg (USD3.86–
5.07/kg) in September 1997 to CNY42-70/kg (USD5.07–8.44/kg) one year later (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt.
2000). In December 2004, the wholesale price was advertised as CNY40/kg (USD4.8/kg) in the
Guangzhou TCM market, one of the 17 largest official TCM markets (ANON. 2005b). Following
implementation of the CITES listing, wholesale prices in Hong Kong increased eight-fold coinciding with adecline in annual imports from approximately 80 t to 10 t.
International trade. TAN & al. (2004) estimate annual demand for Cistanche deserticola outside of China
at 1000 t, with the primary markets being other Asian countries (East, South and Southeast Asia).
CITES annual report data (Table 2) show the export from China of a total of 6255 kg of stems and12 152 kg and 60 000 bottles of derivatives from 2000-2003. Data for 2000 represent only a partial year,
as the CITES listing only took effect from July of that year. ZHANG (2005) comments that reported exports
of Herba Cistanches from China to major destinations from 1994-2004 appear to be lower than those in
the 1980s.
C. deserticola is exported from China primarily to Japan, Hong Kong and Southeast Asia, where demandhas increased in recent years coinciding with heavy promotion of the herb for use in treating impotence
and infertility (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). According to ZHU (1990), approximately 120 t of C. deserticola were exported per year in the 1980s. This figure may be an underestimate, however, as annual
imports into the Republic of Korea alone averaged 120 t between 1989 and 1998, and ranged from 174 t
in 1996 to 57 t in 1998 (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA, in litt.). Reported trade of Herba Cistanches, here a mixtureof C. deserticola and C. salsa, from China to the Republic of Korea totaled 156 t for 2000-2001, 110 t in
2002, and 48 t in 2003. Approximately 45 t were imported in the first part of 2004, declared as C. salsa(SEOL SEOK-JIN in litt. 2004). This trade was not recorded in CITES data, which shows only the reported
export of 2800 kg from China to the Republic of Korea in 2001.
Cistanche exports to Japan averaged approximately 19 t per year in the late 1990s, and appear to have
involved significant quantities of C. salsa (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt. 2000). China’s CITES annual reports
show the export to Japan of 9500 kg of C. deserticola derivatives from 2000-2003, and a further 3250 kgof stems. Corresponding imports of C. deserticola were not reported by Japan, which may reflect
confusion regarding species taxonomy and identification of parts in trade in the context of enforcing the
CITES listing (KIYONO in litt. 2005).
CITES data indicate that Hong Kong was primarily a re-exporter of raw materials (stems) during the early
2000s. About three tonnes of pre-Convention stock was registered with the Hong Kong CITESManagement Authority and two shipments, one of 573 kg and another of 377 kg was exported (TONG inlitt. 2004). CITES data differ from this assessment, showing the reported import of 3143 kg of preConvention stock from Hong Kong in 2001 and a further 456 kg in 2002.
Canada and the USA appear to provide relatively small markets for Cistanche, with 3693 kg of stems
reported as imported from China and Hong Kong in 2001, but only 546 kg in 2002 and 317 kg in 2003. It
seems possible that CITES trade data do not reflect total trade, given confusion regarding the products
covered by the listing and the fact that much of the trade involved finished products.
The Middle East emerged as a potential new destination for Cistanche products, with a total of 60 000
bottles of C. deserticola derivatives reported as exported to Egypt and Bahrain in 2003. CITES data also
show continuing confusion regarding plant parts in trade by importing CITES Management Authorities,
with stems reported as “roots” in several cases.

20

Cistanche deserticola

Table 2. CITES-reported trade in Cistanche deserticola (1995-2003)
Year Country Country Origin
ofofQuantity
Export ImportUnit

P S Quantity

Unit

Term

P

S

90

G

Stems

T

A

120

G

Derivatives

T

I

CN

JP

2001

CN

CA

2001

CN

CA

2001

CN

DE

5

g

2001

CN

GB

14

g

2001

CN

JP

950

g

Stems

T W

2001

CN

KR

2 800

g

Stems

T W

2001

CN

US

2001

CN

US

2001

HK

CA

CN

250

G

Roots

T

A

2001

HK

US

CN

200

G

Roots

T

A

2001

HK

US

??

3 143

G

Roots

T

O

179

G

Stems

T

W

CN

CA

2002

CN

CA

2002

CN

GB

90

9

89

g

Term

Import

2000

2002

4 200

Exportgg

g

Derivatives T W
Derivatives T A
Stems

T A

Derivatives T A

Derivatives T A

Derivatives T W
59 000

2002

CN

GB

200

2002

CN

GR

1

2002

CN

GR

1

g

Stems

I

W

Derivatives L W
Box

Derivatives L W

2002

CN

JP

2 300

g

2002

CN

MY

591

g

Derivatives T W

2002

CN

MY

604

g

Derivatives T A

Stems

T W

2002

CN

NZ

124

g

Derivatives T W

2002

CN

PH

3

g

Derivatives T W

2002

CN

RU

10

g

Derivatives T W

2002

CN

SG

450

g

Derivatives T W

2002

CN

US

3

g

Derivatives T W

2002

HK

CA

??

2002

HK

CA

??

197

g

2003

CN

AE

28 800Bot

Derivatives T W

2003

CN

BH

31 200Bot

Derivatives T W

2003

CN

GB

Stems

CN

GB

2003

CN

GB

2003

CN

GR

2003

CN

JP

5 300

g

Derivatives T W

2003

CN

MY

245

g

Derivatives T W

2003

CN

PH

11

g

Derivatives T W

2003

CN

SG

46

g

Derivatives T W

2003

CN

TH

3

g

Derivatives T W

2003

CN

US

230

g

Derivatives T W

2003

HK

CA

??

91

g

Stems

T O

2003

HK

US

??

91

g

Stems

T O

g

90

G

Derivatives

T

W

456

G

Roots

T

O

198

G

Derivatives

T O

2003

130

Derivatives

I

100

Dried plants

T

W

2

Specimens

E

W

Derivatives T W

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

21

Table 3. Canadian seizures of C. deserticola products(January 2003-November 2004)
Year
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004

Date
Jan 23
Feb 18June 3
Oct 24
Jan 8
Mar 26
April 14
April 16
April 26
April 26

Quantity
90 bags
30 bags
1 bottle
10 bags
10 bags
180 bottles
360 bottles
20 bottles
36 bottles
100 bottles; 50 box;
450 bottles
25 bottles

Commodity
Roots
Roots
Medicines
Roots
Roots
Medicines
Medicines
Medicines
Medicines
Medicines

Illegal harvest and trade. CITES
annual report data record several
seizures of C. deserticola, with 120
kg of derivatives seized by the USA
in 2001, 59 000 derivatives (no unit
provided) seized by the UK in 2002,
and a further 198 kg of derivatives
seized by the UK in 2003. There
werenumerousseizuresof
Cistanche deserticola products upon
import into Canada in 2003 and2004, appearing mainly to involve
finished products (Table 3).

Legislation and regulations

Regulation of harvest, manufacture and domestic trade. Cistanche
2004
April 28
Medicines
deserticola is protected under the2004
May 2860 bottles
Medicines
Law on Wild Plant Protection (HE &2004
May 2850 bags
Roots
SHI, 1995), which took effect 1
January
1997. Under this law,
Source: RIBEYRON in litt. (2004).
protected plant species are classified
into
those
of
“national
keysignificance” and those of “local key significance”. Protected plant species of national key significance arefurther divided into Category I and Category II-protected species. Trade in Category I-protected species is
not allowed. Trade in plant species listed as Category II is subject to authorization by the relevant
government agencies at the provincial/autonomous region level. The State Forestry Administration, theMinistry of Agriculture and other authorized governmental authorities at the provincial/autonomous region
level are responsible for enforcing the Law of Wild Plant Protection. A list of 255 species is appended tothis law.
The species is also listed in the Regulation on Wild Medicinal Resources Protection (RWMRP) as a
Category III species, and therefore designated as a “major and commonly used wild medicinal species
whose resources are reducing.” The Government of China stated in 2002 that C. deserticola would be
included as a Grade II species in the list of State Protected Species in China (ANON. 2002). However, it
was not included in this list as of January 2005. Other Cistanche species are not listed as Grade II
species, as the government does not consider them sufficiently threatened (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt.
2006).
Harvest of C. deserticola was banned in 2000 via a Notification of the State Council (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA
in litt. 2002, ZHAI BAOGUO in litt. 2005). However, Cistanche continues to be harvested in large quantities
despite the ban on collection (CHEN & al. 2002). There are no restrictions on domestic use of the species,
and management of the species in China is unclear, according to TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (in litt. 2006).
The use of wild Herba Cistanches to manufacture medicines is apparently prohibited through a formal
Notification from the State Council by China’s Ministry of Health (ZHAO & al. 2002). It is unclear whether
this applies to all Cistanche species, or only C. deserticola. Incorporation of this notification into thelegislation of individual provinces is not automatic, however, and the process may still be ongoing. The
prohibition on manufacture does not apply more widely to all healthcare products such as medicatedwines and tonics. Perhaps in response to this notification, medicated wine and tonics are increasingly
purporting to contain C. deserticola.
Cistanche deserticola occurs in protected areas such as Linhe County, Inner Mongolia, where collection
has not been observed (ZHAO RUN-HUAI in litt. 2005). Protected areas for Haloxylon ammodendron havebeen established (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000).
Regulation of international trade
CITES listing: Cistanche deserticola was successfully proposed for inclusion in CITES Appendix II by
China at CITES CoP 11 (Nairobi, February 2000), with the listing becoming effective on 19 July 2000. The
listing was annotated with Annotation #3, and therefore applied only to “whole and sliced roots and partsof roots, excluding manufactured parts or derivatives such as powders, pills, extracts, tonics, teas andconfectionery.” However, as the primary parts in trade were stems and products made thereof, not roots(the species in fact lacking true roots), CITES Notification 2001/067 was issued advising that “roots”
22Cistanche deserticola

should be interpreted to refer to “undeveloped inflorescences.” China submitted a proposal to delete theannotation to CITES CoP12 (Santiago, November 2002), with the intention both of correcting the misuseof the term “root”, and bringing under CITES trade controls all parts and derivatives. The latter decisionreflected recognition that a substantial component of international trade involved manufactured products.
This proposal was also accepted, and became effective 13 February 2003. Confusion regarding theinterpretation of the Convention for plant species listed without an annotation, and the decision that suchlistings referred only to whole plants, not parts or derivatives, prompted China to submit a proposal to
CITES CoP 13 (Bangkok, October 2004) to annotate the proposal with Annotation #1, designating “allparts and derivatives, except: a) seeds, spores and pollen (including pollinia); b) seedling or tissue
cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers and c) cut flowers ofartificially propagated plants.” This proposal was also accepted, effective 12 January 2005. The annotation
was modified yet again at CITES CoP 14 (The Hague, June 2007), as part of a Plants Committee process
to clarify and harmonise annotations for medicinal plants. The revised annotation, coming into effect on 13
September 2007, "Designates all parts and derivatives except: a) seeds and pollen; and b) finishedproducts packaged and ready for retail trade.”
At present, there is no law formulated specifically to implement CITES within China, however, a series ofregulations implementing CITES, the Import and Export Regulations of Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora,came into effect on 1 September 2006.
From 1 January 1998, China’s regulatory system for the export of wild animals and plants wasstrengthened by the Endangered Species Import and Export Management Office (under the State Forest
Administration), the designated CITES Management Authority, and the Customs Authority. A wide rangeof animals and plants with their corresponding Harmonized System Customs codes are specified in anannex attached to a Joint Notification from the Management Authority and the Customs Authority. The list
is said to be compiled on the basis of the CITES Appendices and the lists of key national protectedanimals and plants. The notification has been circulated among the officers of the Management Authority
and Customs across the country and was copied to various other governmental agencies. Trade in live
animals or plants, parts in their raw form, and products made from those animals and plants specified on
the said list are controlled. According to the Joint Notification, where applicable, import/export permits orcertificates are required.
Both C. deserticola imports into and exports from China require CITES permits. Exports of RWMRP
Category III species are subject to a quota system as specified in Article 15 of the regulation. However, it
is not clear how the quota system is implemented (GOVERNMENT OF CHINA 2000). Presumably any exportsof C. deserticola would be subject to this quota requirement. Export permits for this species have not been
issued by the Government of China since January 2004 owing to the scarcity of the species.
In Hong Kong, import and export of C. deserticola has required advance issuance of a licence since early
2002, with a maximum penalty for failure to obtain such a licence being a fine of HKD5 000 000 (about
USD640 000) and two years imprisonment (LAI 2001). Registration of pre-Convention stock has also beenrequired; a total of three tonnes has been registered. The Republic of Korea similarly requirespresentation of export permits for the import of C. deserticola (LEE in litt. 2005).

Conclusions
Cistanche deserticola is clearly in demand for medicinal use in China, and to a lesser but still significant
extent, elsewhere in Asia. There is also evidence of ongoing demand within North America for both raw
materials (stems) and finished products. It would appear to be the most popular of the Cistanche species,
many others of which are also used medicinally. C. deserticola and several other Cistanche species aretraded as “Herba Cistanches”, the term applied to the dried stem, the primary plant part in trade. They
may be included in packaged medicines either singly or mixed. Such packages are frequently labeled as
containing “Cistanche” rather than indicating the species involved. Owing to the mixing of the species inmedicinal products, there do not appear to be any accurate data with regard to quantities harvested and/orin domestic or international trade. International trade to Japan may involve primarily C. salsa. The vast
majority of C. deserticola in trade is from wild sources, with commercial cultivation, although promoted, notproducing sufficient quantities to meet demand.
Although it appears that no thorough population studies have been done, there is general consensus that
C. deserticola has declined significantly throughout much of its range as a result of harvest for medicinaluse and trade (mainly domestic) and loss of the host species Haloxylon ammodendron. The latter isdeclining in part as a result of harvest for fuel wood and agricultural practices within its habitat. There isalso concern that other Cistanche species are declining as a result of harvest for medicinal use.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

23

Information regarding harvest and trade controls for C. deserticola within China remains unclear. Available
information indicates that harvest is banned, at least at the national level; however this, and incorporationof the ban in the legislation of individual provinces and autonomous regions, requires confirmation.
Domestic use in the manufacture of medicines appears to have been banned at the national level,
however uptake within local-level legislation may not be universal, and use continues to be allowed in the
manufacture of tonics and medicated wines. National-level export controls for C. deserticola and other
Cistanche species similarly require further clarification. China’s CITES Management Authority hassuggested that inclusion of the entire genus Cistanche within CITES Appendix II be considered as apossible next step (YUAN JIMING in litt. 2006).

Possible next steps
The Government of China might be encouraged to:•

Clarify and confirm harvest and domestic trade controls for C. deserticola and other Cistanche species
within China;•

Confirm how it discriminates between C. deserticola and other Cistanche species in controlling
exports;•

Undertake status and trade studies and assess the level of threat to other Cistanche species posed bydomestic and international trade;•

Based on the above information, consider proposing the listing of the remaining Cistanche
species/subspecies in CITES Appendix II at the genus level;•

Establish a management system for C. deserticola, including establishment of protected areas withpopulations of Haloxylon ammodendron, with a particular emphasis on maintaining the species, andestablishing harvest and ecological restoration areas;•

Establish harvest and domestic trade controls for the host species of C. deserticola (Haloxylon
ammodendron); and•Further investigate the potential role of cultivation in meeting demand for C. deserticola.

References
ANON. (1995a): Commonly Used Medicinal Materials in China. Science Press, Beijing, China - pp. 1148.
ANON. (1995b): Medicinal Materials Resources in China. Science Press, Beijing, China - pp. 287.
ANON. (1995c): Geographical Division of Medicinal Materials in China. Science Press, Beijing,China - pp.
634.
ANON. (2002): Endangered Species Scientific Newsletter. Executive Office of Endangered Species
Scientific Commission, Chinese CITES Scientific Authority. Issue 3.
ANON. (2005a): UNEP-WCMC Species Database. http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/isdb/Taxonomy/tax-speciesresult.cfm?source=plants&genus=Cistanche&species=deserticola (Viewed 01.2005).
ANON. (2005b): Guang Zhou Chinese medicine markets: New Information of the price of drugs(05.12.2004). http://www.yczx.gov.cn/ysdtguangzhou.htm (Chinese). (Viewed 18.02.2005).
CAO Zhen, Wen-jun ZHAO & Xue-ping WU (2004): Studies on the chemical constituents of the cultivated
Cistanche deserticola Y.C. MA. Natural Product Research and Development. http://www.nature
product.cn/english/mljs/mljs2004N6/mljs2004N6-9.htm (Viewed 03.2005).
CHEN, CHANG-DU, LI-YUAN ZHANG, YING HAI & ZHI-YAO TANG (2002): The Unique position of biodiversity ofdesert plants in Gurbantunggut of Northern Xinjiang in deserts of China. Proceeding of theInternational Advance Science and Technology Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation andUtilization, Beijing. Science Press, Beijing, China (Chinese).
CHU, C.P.S. & S.K.H. LEE (in prep.): Proprietary Chinese Medicinal Products Trade in Hong Kong(provisional title). TRAFFIC EAST ASIA, Hong Kong.
ELLIS, A. (2003): Notes from South Mountain. Thin Moon Publishing, Berkeley, USA.
FAN WEN-YING (2001): Progress and Problem of Exploitation and Research on Cistanche. Inner Mongolia
Forestry Investigation and Design Vol.24 No.4 December 2001. pp. 46-47.

24

Cistanche deserticola

FU LI-KUO & J. JIAN-MING (Eds.) (1992): China Plant Red Data Book - Rare and Endangered Plants(Volume 1). Science Press, Beijing, China.
GOVERNMENT OF CHINA (2000): Proposal to include Cistanche deserticola in CITES Appendix II.
HE SONG-CHUN & DA-WEN SHI (1995): Resources and identification of the original plants of traditional
Chinese medicine Cistanche. Acta Academiae Medicinae Shanghai Vol.22 No.3 May 1995. pp.
186-188.
IUCN (2006): 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.redlist.org. (Downloaded on 31.10.2006).
IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC (2000): IUCN Analyses of Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices. Prepared
by IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC Network for the Eleventh Meeting of theConference of the Parties to CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC (2002): IUCN Analyses of Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices. Prepared
by IUCN Species Survival Commission and the TRAFFIC Network for the Twelfth Meeting of theConference of the Parties to CITES. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC (2004): IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the CITES
Appendices. Prepared by IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC for the Thirteenth
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
KIYONO, H., TRAFFIC East Asia – Japan (2005): in litt. to S. Lee, TRAFFIC East Asia (07.01.2005).
LAI, C.W. (2001): Amendment to the Schedules to the Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered
Species) Ordinance, Cap. 187 Hong Kong Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department.
LEE, S., TRAFFIC East Asia (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (01.2005).
LUO TINGBIN, YANING CHEN, WEI REN, YANGMING ZHONG & WENZHAO ZHONG (2002): The Herba Cistanches
investigation improving Arid Zone Research Vol.19 No.4 December 2002, pp. 56-58.
MENG ZHIBIN, Director of the Office of the CITES Scientific Authority China (2005): in litt. to S. Lee,
TRAFFIC East Asia (20.01.2005).
PENG HUA & ZAIFU XU (1995): The threatened wild plants used for medicine as Chinese medicinal herbs,
Chinese Biodiversity Information Center, http://monkey.ioz.ac.cn/bwg-cciced/english/bwg-cciced/
tech-33.htm (Viewed 15.01.2005).
RIBEYRON, M.J., Scientific Advisor CITES, Environment Canada (2004): in litt. to S. Lee, TRAFFIC East
Asia (25.06.2004).
SEOL SEOK-JIN (2004): in litt. to S. Lee, TRAFFIC East Asia (09.07.2004).
SUN YONG-GIANG, XING-GUO ZHENG, ZHONG-YUAN LU, XIAO-FEN ZHANG and YUAN GAO (2003): Probe to
Cistanche deserticola resources and its artificial planting in Xinjiang. Journal of Arid Land
Resources and Environment, Vol.17 No.3 May 2003, pp. 123-127.
TAN, D., Q. GUO & C. WANG (2004): Study on the status quo of Cistanche deserticola and its exploitation
and utilization in China. Forest Resources Management 2: 29-32. (In Chinese, with English
abstract),
TONG, P., Endangered Species Protection Officer, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (2004): in litt. to S. Lee, TRAFFIC East
Asia (14.06.2004).
TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International. [reference cited in IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC
2000]
TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (2002): in litt. to TRAFFIC International. [reference cited in IUCN/SSC & TRAFFIC
2002]
TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (2006): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (14.03.06).
TU PENG-FEI, YAN-PING HE & ZHI-CEN LAO (1994): Resource Survey and Protection of Medicine of
Cistanche. Chinese Traditional and Herbal Drugs, Beijing, China.
TU PENG-FEI, YAN-PING HE & ZHI-CEN LOU (1994): Survey and Protection of Medicinal Resources ofDesert-living Cistanche Cistanche deserticola. Zhong Cao Yao 25(4): 205-208.
WANG SONG & XIE YAN (2004): China Species Red List Vol.1. Higher Education Press, Beijing, China.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

25

WANG, X. & Z. YANG (compilers) (in press): Plants of the Chinese Region. Status Survey and Conservation
Action Plan. IUCN/SSC China Plant Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Wu, K. & K. ZHANG. (1993): Photo Collection of Chinese Medicinal Plants.
XU HONGFA, TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (2005): in litt. to IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme, Cambridge, UK(05.05.2005).
YIN LIN-KE, ZHENG-MING CHEN & HUI-XIA PAN (2002): Resources of several wild medicinal plants in aridzone of Xinjiang and their introduction & cultivation. Arid Zone Research 19(4): 28-32.
YUAN JIMING, CITES Management Authority of China (2006): in litt. to U. Schippman, CITES Scientific
Authority Germany (22.05.2006).
ZHAI BAOGUO (2005): in litt. to S. Lee, TRAFFIC East Asia (09.02.2005).
ZHANG BAO-QUAN, MEI-YING CHEN & JIAN-HUA WU (2001): The resource status of Rou Cong Rong in Yi Li
Zhou. Xinjiang Chinese Medicine 19(2): 39-40.
ZHANG NONG, MING LI & LING-YAN WU (2002): Resource of So-So, strange willow tree and Rou Cong Rongin Gansu. Gansu Forestry, June Issue, Lanzhou, China.
ZHAO, RUN-HUAI, RONG-CHEN YANG & JIAN-WEI Lu (2002): Roucongyong, tonifying kidney and desertstorm. Research and Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine 4:5.
ZHAO RUN-HUAI, Director of Information Centre, China National Corporation of Traditional and Herbal
Medicine (2005): in litt. to S. Lee, TRAFFIC East Asia (20.01.2005).
ZHU, S. (1990): Medicinal Materials as Commodities in China. People’s Sanitation Publication, Beijing,
China.
ZHU, R. & Z. LUO (2000): Study progress and prospect analysis of Cistanche salsa (C.A. Mey). Journal of
Hunan Forestry Science & Technology 27(40): 19-22. (In Chinese, with English abstract).

26

Dioscorea deltoidea

Dioscorea deltoidea
Taxonomy

Dioscorea deltoidea WALL. (family Dioscoreaceae)

Synonyms

Dioscorea nepalensis SWEET ex BERNARDI, Tamnus nepalensis (SWEET) JACQUEMONT ex
PRAIN & BURKILL

Trade names

Bahrahkanda (san), Bhyakur (nep) Deltoid Yam (eng), Dioscorea (eng), Dioscoreae
deltoideae radix (pha), Dioscoreae deltoideae rhizoma (pha), Discory (Uttaranchal),
Elephant’s foot (eng), Ghunar (nep), Kanis (Pakistan), Kildri (kas), Kins (kas), Kithi (kas),
Kitra (pun), Kniss (pun), Kreench, (kas), Kriss (pun), Kukurtarul (nep), Medicinal Yam(eng), San-jiao-ye-shu-yu (chi), Singlimingli (hin), Tar (pun), Tarul (new), Tentur (Gurung),
Vyakur (nep) (IUCN NEPAL 2004, KAUL In litt. 2005, KHAN 2002, LANGE & SCHIPPMANN
1999, MANANDHAR 2002, OLSEN & LARSEN 2003, RAWAT. In litt. 2005, SCHIPPMANN 2001).

Description. Deciduous perennial with annual climbing stem up to 3 m tall and horizontal rhizome, 3040 cm in length, borne close to the surface of the soil. Leaves alternate, 5-13 cm long, base deeply cordate, often triangular. Flowers dioecious, in small, distinct clusters. Fruits triangular, seeds winged(CHAUHAN 1999, NAYAR & SASTRY 1988). Flowers April-May, fruits October-November according to
HUSSAIN & al. (1979). According to KHAN (2002), in Pakistan, it sprouts after the snowmelt in April-May andflowers in June-July, with fruits ripening in August-September.
Distribution. Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Lao PDR, Nepal, Pakistan, Thailand, Viet Nam.
Himalayan region and Indochina. In western China it is found at altitudes of
2000-3100 m (ANON. 2002a), however, its range remains uncertain in that area. It is found in Yunnan province (HEINONEN & VAINIO-MATTILA 1999). In India it occurs in the northwestern Himalayas including thestates of Jammu & Kashmir (at altitudes of 1700-2800 m), Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Sikkim, Himachal
Pradesh (from 900-3000 m in a variety of habitats), Uttaranchal, and in the Garo Hills, the Ri-Bhoi district
and Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya (LOC 1986, NAYAR & SASTRY 1988, PRADHAN 1993, RASTOGI & PANT 2004,
SHRESTHA 1988). In Nepal it is distributed in the subtropical and temperate zones from 450 to 3100 m(OLSEN & LARSEN 2003). Its range there includes the districts of Makwanpur, Chitwan, Jumla, Rolpa,
Dang, Surkhet and Udayapur (MALLA & al. 1995). It is widely distributed in northern Pakistan, particularly
the Astore Valley, where it has been identified in Rama, Rattu, Chittinadi, Faqir-kot, Chillum, Sardar Khoti,
and Burzil. Grows on northern aspects of moderate slopes from 2000-3500 m and is shade loving (ZAIDI
undated). This species has been found in forest undergrowth from 1000-3000 m in north Pakistan (IUCNPAKISTAN in litt. 2005) and in the Palas Valley at elevations of 2200-2700 m (SAQIB & SULTAN 2004). Foundin the province of Son La, Viet Nam (DE BEER 1993).
D. deltoidea occurs in a range of habitats from rocky areas to (semi) shady woodland with acidic or alkaline soils, which can range from light and sandy to heavy clay, providing they are rich in humus and moist,
but well drained (ANON. 2002a).
Population status and threats. The species is not included in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006). It has
been described as “endangered” by AYENSU (1996). The most recent status assessment for this species
took place at a Conservation Assessment and Management Planning (CAMP) workshop in India in 2003
where it was assessed as Endangered2001 in Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal due
to decline caused by harvest for medicine and trade (VED & al. 2003). According to RAWAT (in litt. 2005)
and KAUL (in litt. 2005), the main threats in India are currently human induced habitat loss and degradation, and harvest for domestic use. A prior CAMP assessment (1998) had considered the species to be
Critically Endangered1994 in northern India. This assessment was based on an estimated population decline of 80% in that region within the previous 10 years caused by loss of habitat and overexploitation for
trade (MOLUR & WALKER 1998). In 1988, Dioscorea deltoidea was assessed as “vulnerable” in India in the
Red Data Book of Indian Plants (NAYAR & SASTRY 1988). It is considered as “in danger of genetic erosion”
in India (MAITI 2004).
The species was previously considered as “vulnerable” in Nepal, where supplies have declined considerably (BHATTARAI 1997), and, more recently, as Endangered2001 in Nepal based on a CAMP workshop
held there in January 2001 (TANDON & al. 2001). They key threats identified in Nepal were overexploitation
for medicinal use and trade, “interference” and habitat loss. While considering the information from the
CAMP workshop to be a useful starting point, OLSEN & LARSEN (2003) questioned the classifications; they
considered that the empirical data were scant, quantitative information both on the status of the resource
and on harvest levels across Nepal lacking, and evidence of overharvest inconclusive. They consideredthat the assessments were based on the assessors’ perceptions in the context of applying the IUCN Red
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

27

List criteria rather than on comprehensive scientific evidence, and concluded that information was insufficient to determine the effects of current harvest levels. Declines in harvest rates from 1999 to 2004 areconsidered as a possible indication of overharvest in Nepal, though this could also reflect a decline in demand. Traders in Nepal believe that wild populations are sufficient to meet demand, should it increase in
future (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Following consultation with representatives from the CITES Scientific Authority, Nepal’s CITES Management Authority stated that they considered the species to be threatened in thewild in Nepal (SHARMA in litt. 2006).
Population declines have been observed in Pakistan due to overharvesting although regeneration fromseeds is good. Habitat destruction due to agriculture, urbanization, population expansion, tourism andinfrastructure is also considered to be a threat (IUCN Pakistan in litt. 2005). The species is consideredthreatened and in need of conservation by a recent study of medicinal resources of the Hindukush Himalayan regions (ZAIDI undated). The species has been considered “rare” in Viet Nam (LOC 1986).
Similar species: Dioscorea prazeri PRAIN & BURKILL is found in the rainforests of the eastern Himalayas
and is an allied species (KAUL 1997). There are over 20 species of Dioscorea, several having properties
similar to those of D. deltoidea and therefore being used in traditional and western medicines (ANON.
2003).
Medicinal uses
Plant parts used for medicinal purposes: Primarily dried rhizomes.
The species is considered a medicinal plant of major importance in continental Asia, particularly for thehigher elevation regions of Nepal, Bhutan, northern India and Pakistan, and southwestern China (SAEED
1997).
Dioscorea deltoidea rhizomes contain diosgenin, which is widely used as a precursor in the synthesis ofsteroid hormones such as progesterone, corticosteroids, and anabolic steroids (ANON. 2002a). The mostimportant sapogenins are diosgenin and yamogenin (HUSAIN & al. 1979), with the rhizomes said to contain
8-10% sapogenin (MORTON 1977), of which 4.8% is diosgenin (CHOPRA & al. 1986). A steroidal saponin isalso found in the leaves (ANON. 2002b).
The plant is used both as traditional medicine and as a source of steroidal drugs for western medicine. In
India, at least two international firms use the steroid extract of D. deltoidea in allopathic formulations andtwo herbal formulations derived from the species are manufactured there (JAIN in litt. 2005). In sometreatments in India, D. deltoidea tends to be used in isolation rather than being mixed with other species(KAUL in litt. 2005). In traditional medicine in Nepal, auxiliary rhizomes from the upper parts of the plants
are boiled and the liquid is used to treat gastric problems and bloody dysentery (MANANDHAR 2002). Extracts from the rhizomes are used to treat roundworm and have anti-rheumatic properties. It is not used in
Ayurvedic medicines in India (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998, SHAH 1983) or Nepal (AMATYA in litt. 2005). In Pakistan, D. deltoidea is used to treat kidney problems (KHAN 2002).
According to LANGE (1999; 2005) diosgenin and other basic compounds for steroid hormones are largely
produced from sources other than D. deltoidea, e.g. the seeds of Trigonella foenum-graecum (from cultivation) and Solanum spp. (e.g. Solanum laciniatum, S. marginatum), used to produce the compound Solasodine. Steroidal compounds, including diosgenin, are also synthesised directly. However, extraction
from D. deltoidea for production of diosgenin-based drugs still occurred in the USA and Mexico during thelate 1990s. The US seizure of large quantities of Dioscorea spp. imported from countries in Latin America
indicates that demand for diosgenin may persist in that country.
Other uses. Like many other species of Dioscorea, or yams, the tuberous rhizomes are eaten. However,they have to be repeatedly washed and boiled to eliminate their toxic properties (LANGE 1999, TRAFFICINDIA 1998). In Nepal, the rhizomes are mainly eaten by the rural communities in the Makwanpur, Chitwan
and Dhadhing districts. The Chepang tribes of Nepal, suffering from food scarcity, have been overharvesting the species (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Discorea spp. are eaten as a famine food in Yunnan, China(HEINONEN & VAINIO-MATTILA 1999)
The rhizomes are traditionally used in the Western Himalayas to launder raw wool and woollen fabrics
owing to their saponin content (MORTON 1977) and for washing clothes in Nepal (MANANDHAR 2002). As
the saponins are toxic, rhizomes are also made into soap used to kill lice (ANON. 2002a), especially among
hill tribe communities in Jammu & Kashmir, India (KAUL 1997). A mixture of juice from the rhizomes is also
sprinkled on water as a poison to catch fish in Nepal (MANANDHAR 2002).
Harvest and processing. In India, the optimum time to harvest rhizomes of D. deltoidea is considered tobe when the plants have reached their maximum size after three years, and when they are dormant from28

Dioscorea deltoidea

November-December (RAWAT in litt. 2005). According to CHAUHAN (1999) the optimum harvest season isfrom November-March. During this dormant stage, before new buds emerge, the diosgenin and yamogenin contents are highest (HUSSAIN & al. 1979, MORTON 1977). Regeneration of the rhizomes is often
more successful than seed germination, but harvesting inhibits both (KAUL in litt. 2005, RAWAT in litt.
2005). Collection mainly takes place in cool, temperate regions, in particular among shrubs on rocky substrates (KAUL 1997) and secondary forest and forest edges. Rhizomes are collected from the wild especially in Jammu & Kashmir and Uttaranchal (ANON. 2000). In Jammu & Kashmir, hill communities collectthe species as an opportunistic activity (KAUL in litt. 2005). Collection causes soil erosion. Other species
are not collected simultaneously (RAWAT in litt. 2005). D. deltoidea is cultivated in Karnataka and Tripura(ANON. 2000).
After collection, harvesters chop the plants into smaller units to dry in the sun (RAWAT in litt. 2005). This issometimes done by local and regional middlemen instead, who also pack the plant materials. Exporters
grade the material and verify if it is adulterant free. Pharmaceutical companies assess the quality of the
product and active ingredients are tested, based on samples provided by the exporters. These companies
then grind the plants to prepare powders or extract diosgenin before further processing into, for instance,
16 DPA (Dehydropregneninolone Acetate) (AMATYA in litt. 2005, KAUL in litt. 2005).
In Nepal the best time for harvest is similarly considered to be during the dormant phase (NovemberDecember), in order to get the maximum percentage of diosgenin; if delayed new buds may emerge, significantly decreasing the sapogenin content. Dioscorea rhizomes are considered difficult to harvest, andusually a portion remains buried in the soil (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
A survey in the Nepalese forest districts during the 1990s revealed that D. deltoidea was collected forexport in three out of 75 districts (MALLA & al. 1995). D. deltoida is harvested and traded under two trade
names in Nepal: Vyakur/Bhyakur and Kukurtarul. Under the Forest Regulation (1995), harvesters arecharged a forest royalty fee of NPR10/kg (USD0.14/kg) for Vyakur/Bhyakur, in contrast to only NPR3/kg(USD0.04/kg) for Kukurtarul. As a result, it is expected that D. deltoidea is more commonly harvested andsold under the name Kukurtarul, as reflected in data provided by the Department of Forests (Table 1).
Table 1. Harvest figures based on Royalty (forest revenue) records for D. deltoidea traded as Vyakur and as Kukurtarul (Nepal)
Reported Vyakur harvests in Nepal (royalty: NPR10/kg)
Fiscal year
Quantity: kg dry weight

1999/2000
3 569

2000/2001
4 568

2001/2002

2002/2003

2 240

1 978

2003/2004
904

Reported Kukurtarul harvests in Nepal (royalty: NPR3/kg)
Fiscal years

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004

Quantity: kg dry weight

6 671

4 421

2 286

6 002

41

Total kg

10 240

8 989

4 526

7 980

945

Source: Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal.

RAWAL (1997) estimated collection quantities in Nepal as ranging from 2-20 t annually between 1989 and1994. A mid-1990s survey in Nepalese forest districts indicated a total annual amount of licensed harvestof some two tonnes (MALLA & al. 1995). OLSEN (1998) estimated an annual average harvest of 10.9 t ofwild-collected D. deltoidea traded from the Gorkha district and exported to India in 1994-1995, indicatingthat harvests significantly exceeded licensed levels. OLSEN & LARSEN (2003) estimated harvest quantities
in 1997-1998 based on harvester and trader surveys in 15 districts to be of the order of 134 t (range 28159 t). Harvest levels based on duties paid show a harvest of only 10 t in 1999-2000, falling to less than
one tonne in 2003-2004 (Table 1). Declines in reported harvest rates seem likely to reflect, at least in part,a decline in demand in India (see below).
In Pakistan, the underground rhizomes are collected after seed dispersal (IUCN Pakistan in litt. 2005). In
the North Western Frontier Province and Baluchistan, the approximate annual yield of D. deltoidea from
Kashmir forests in the mid-1990s was 148 t of rhizomes and a further 233 t of stems (SAEED 1997). In
2001, the total estimated quantity of rhizomes extracted annually was 230 t, at a price of PKR16/kg(USD0.52/kg); however, the same source noted that a chemical company purchased the rhizomes for amuch lower price, PKR4-5/kg (USD0.13-0.16/kg) (SABRA & WALTER 2001).
Cultivation. The species grows best in temperate climates and in rich organic soil. HUSSAIN (1992) reported that pieces of rhizome weighing 50-60 g with one to two buds were used commercially for masspropagation of the species, with optimum yield and maximum diosgenin content obtained if the plants
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

29were harvested after growing for at least three years. He added that cultivation efforts had been made byvarious industries in India.
There is conflicting information regarding the levels of cultivation within India. Apparently considered to be
cultivated on a commercial scale as of 1996 (ANON. 1996), according to MOLUR & WALKER (1998) there
was no commercial cultivation within India at the time of writing, although the agrotechnology had beendeveloped by two research institutes. SAMANT & al. (1998) stated that propagation protocols (tissue culture) had been developed for the species, which was reported to be cultivated in the Indian Himalayan
region. The Himachal Pradesh Forest Department has experimented with cultivation of D. deltoidea inplantations of Deodar Cedrus deodara, fir Abies spp. and spruce Picea spp. in the Kullu and Sundernagar
forest divisions. Rhizome pieces weighing 50-100 g were sown by dibbling and yielded around 500 g after
10 years (CHAUHAN 1999, GUPTA 1988). Similar experiments in the same region yielded 17.7 t of fresh
rhizomes per hectare when harvested after just under four years (CHAUHAN 1999). Dioscorea spp. rhizomes are said to be cultivated in Karnataka and Tripura (ANON. 2000). After propagation of rhizome
pieces, it takes between seven and 10 years for the species to reach harvestable levels under the mostsuitable conditions, with the result that cultivation on a commercial scale has not been attractive to farmers(FAROOQI & SREERAMU 2001).
Instructions for cultivating ‘steroidal yams’ such as D. deltoidea and other Dioscorea species in Andhra
Pradesh are provided by Ikisan (ANON. 2000), and attention drawn to the availability of improved varieties,
with an estimated net profit of INR25 000/ha (USD572/ha). The Indian National Scientific Documentation
Centre estimates the cultivation cost per hectare of D. deltoidea and D. floribunda over three years at
INR20 000 (USD458), with an expected net profit of INR10 000 (USD229), the latter figure consideredmore likely to reflect actual profits by JAIN (in litt. 2005). The Government of Jammu promotes cultivationby providing cultivation packs according to KAUL (in litt. 2005), however he did not believe that the species
was cultivated on an organised basis. RASTOGI & PANT (2004) found that D. deltoidea “responded extremely well to mass propagation in nurseries and experimental plantation trials in the forests”, withpropagation initiated in eight “medicinal plant propagation areas” expected to yield between 4260 kg and5680 kg (fresh weight) in 2006. Propagation was by seed, with yields expected to be from 300-400 kg in
the third year. Cultivation has been promoted in the Parvati Valley of the Kullu District of Himachal
Pradesh.
The Indian branch of an international pharmaceutical company reported that D. deltoidea plantations havebeen developed in southern India, with plants initially grown in nurseries and then transferred to farms,
with “good yield in production….putting India on the map of corticosteroid producers”. The roots are processed at a factory in Mumbai. This company has also begun cultivating the exotic species D. composita
and D. floribunda for diosgenin production within India, with the claim that they were the first to successfully cultivate these species (ANON. undated). D. floribunda is also being commercially cultivated in Tripura(ANON. 2002c).
In Nepal, cultivation experiments have been carried out, but the species is not commercially cultivated.
The species has been considered to have great commercial potential for cultivation in Pakistan, where
trials were successful (SHER 2001).
National market. A study in the Chhakinal Watershed (Kullu district, Himachal Pradesh, India) found thatD. deltoidea was of commercial value but not used locally. It was wild-collected and sold at USD0.1/kg in
the villages and USD1/kg in the end market. An annual total of 5370 kg of D. deltoidea was sold from theregion (DOBRIYAL & al. 1997).
In a trade survey carried out in 1997 by TRAFFIC India, D. deltoidea was found to be regularly available inthe markets of Delhi, Amritsar and Kolkata (previously Calcutta), but only rarely in Haridwar and Mumbai.
An Indian trade organization estimated India’s annual demand at 700 t in 1997 (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), thisfigure very high in comparison with other estimates. The dried plants were sold at INR20-65/kg (USD0.51.9/kg), the fresh plants at INR12-30/kg (USD0.3-0.8/kg). Amritsar was considered the only significant
market, with trade there estimated at 40 t per year. Plant materials offered for sale at Amritsar weresourced from Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. Demand within India was estimated at 150 t per
year in 2002, of which India was only able to supply 60 t (ANON. 2002c). This species is mainly sold in
Amritsar, Delhi and Kolkata, which also supply smaller markets elsewhere. Prices vary with the diosgenin
content (GUPTA 2005).
It seems likely that the main demand for D. deltoidea within India relates to production of diosgenin, andthat the market is declining with the increased availability of other sources of diosgenin, e.g. from cultivation of D. deltoidea and other Dioscorea species within India, and imports of diosgenin from other countries. Diosgenin produced from cultivated D. floribunda by the Tripura Forest Development and Plantation
Corporation was said in 2002 to be unable to compete on the market with lower priced imports from Mex30

Dioscorea deltoidea

ico and China, which sold for INR1200-1300/kg (USD32-35/kg), compared to INR1700-2000/kg (USD4553/kg) from the corporation (ANON. 2002c).
According to OLSEN & LARSEN (2003), there is no domestic demand for this species in Nepal, with all harvests destined for export to India. Prices paid to harvesters in Nepal during the late 1990s ranged from
USD0.1–0.7/kg, and averaged USD0.5±0.1/kg. In 1997/98, the average price paid was USD0.6/kg,
D. deltoidea harvests accounting for approximately 2.7% of the total value of medicinal plant harvests
during that period (OLSEN & LARSEN 2003). Quantities of D. deltoidea ‘at the market’ in Nepal are reported
to have declined from 8.9 t in 1995 to six tonnes in 1999. Prices are said to have increased during thissame period from NPR2/kg (USD0.03/kg) to NPR10.33/kg (USD0.14/kg) (NEW ERA 2001). The decline in
harvest and trade volumes corresponds with information provided by traders in Nepal, who indicate thatdemand is declining, that quantities in trade are very small and that buyers in India are currently moreinterested in importing extract than raw D. deltoidea from Nepal. According to AMATYA (in litt. 2005), medicinal plants wholesalers in, for instance, the Kathmandu Valley, were selling less than in previous years,
down to about 100 kg per annum. The growing availability of alternative sources of diosgenin and othercompounds for use as steroid precursors, as mentioned under ‘medicinal uses’, as well as increases incultivation, seem likely to be the cause of reduced demand in Nepal.
D. deltoidea was listed as one of the 12 medicinal species of greatest economic importance and highvalue nationally and internationally in a 2001 study in Pakistan (SHER 2001), where it was said to sell for a
local price of PKR60/kg (USD0.98/kg) and a national price of PKR150/kg (USD2.46/kg). In Pakistan’s
Palas Valley D. deltoidea was considered to have market value but not to be overharvested (SAQIB &SULTAN 2004). This species has previously been reported as harvested in the province of Son La, northViet Nam, and used for the production of diosgenin for use wholly in the domestic pharmaceutical industry(DE BEER 1993).
International trade
Table 2. CITES-reported trade in Dioscorea deltoidea (1995-2003)
Year Country Country Originof Exof ImQuantity
port
port
2000

DE

Export
Unit

Term

US

ImportP

S

Quantity Unit

Term

P

S

80

Live

T

A

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

There is only one record of international trade in CITES annual report data for 1975-2003, with the USA
reporting the import from Germany of 80 artificially propagated live specimens in 2000. However, wholesalers in India reported in the late 1990s that trade in the species was primarily for export (TRAFFIC INDIA
1998). According to an officer of India’s CITES Management Authority, D. deltoidea is not exported ineither raw or processed form (JAIN in litt. 2005). Neither Nepal’s nor India’s Customs data include a specific Customs code for D. deltoidea.
Based on district-level surveys, wholesaler interviews and a review of export documentation, OLSEN &LARSEN (2003) estimate that 78 t (range 36-129 t) of D. deltoidea roots were exported from Nepal during
1997/98, all which was destined for India.
According to a study by the Mountain Areas Conservancy Project (SHER 2001), D. deltoidea was being
exported from Pakistan via exporters in Jodia Bazaar, Karachi and Akbari Mandi Lahore to Germany,
Japan, France, Switzerland, India, South Africa and the Middle East. No information was provided on theform of these exports. Export from Pakistan to Japan had also been reported by FAO (1994) and SABRA &WALTER (2001).
An industry source in the USA indicated that a large number of US companies trade in D. deltoidea, primarily in the form of dry rhizomes, imported from different range States. The majority of the companies
use more than one Dioscorea species in their botanical supplement lines. Only a few companies havespecific guidelines to use raw materials identified to the species level. However, D. deltoidea is not recorded in the ‘Herbs of Commerce’, which implies that it is unlikely to be used in significant amounts in theUSA. Only one product containing D. deltoidea was identified on the internet as being sold in the USA,targeted at athletes and bodybuilders, and which is apparently no longer available (TRAFFIC NORTHAMERICA 2005). The US market could reflect increased interest in Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).
DHEA is being promoted as having various anti-ageing properties, and is primarily produced from diosgenin. Some extracts from wild yams have been marketed as “natural DHEA” (UNIVERSITY OF MARYLANDMEDICAL CENTRE 2004).
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

31

There does not appear to be a market for this species within Europe (LANGE 2005).
Illegal harvest and trade. In India, the species is found in wildlife sanctuaries and other protected areas
where some illegal collection is believed to occur (KAUL in litt. 2005). RAWAT (in litt. 2005) reported collection from at least three such sanctuaries in Uttaranchal, but believed amounts to be negligible. RASTOGI &PANT (2004) considered that a considerable amount collected in Himachal Pradesh entered trade illegally.
From 2000-2003, the Government of India recorded a single seizure of this species: 100 kg of dry roots
were seized at the Mumbai sea docks in 2001, destined for France. These were seized in keeping with
India’s general ban on exports of wild-harvested specimens of this species (CITES MANAGEMENTAUTHORITY OF INDIA 2004).
Table 3. Seizures of “D. deltoidea” in the USA(1999-2004)
Date intercepted
01-03
01-03
01-03
01-03
01-03
11-03
02-04
02-04
06-04
07-04

Country oforiginCosta Rica
Costa Rica
Colombia
Colombia
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Ghana
Ghana
Jamaica
Gabon

Source: USFWS 2004.

AmountUnknown
1 200 g
59 203 g
1 400 g
44 793 g
2 boxes
123 cartons
4 520 g
1 100 count4 tubers

In the USA, ten seizures of “D. deltoidea“ wererecorded by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
from 1999-2004 (Table 3), half from Colombia
and Costa Rica in January 2003 which totalled atleast 107 t of, presumably, rhizomes, and the rest
between January 2003 and July 2004 (USFWS2004). Based on the amounts seized, it would be
expected that Dioscorea spp. is in high demandin the USA. However, bearing in mind thatD. deltoidea is native to Asia, and that trade to
North America would not normally involve transit
via Latin American countries, the seizures seem
likely to involve other Dioscorea species, e.g.
species native to the Americas.
Evidence of ongoing international trade, at minimum between Nepal and India, in the absence of
CITES permits indicates steady, if perhaps declining, illegal trade in this species. Should reported trade to the USA be verified, this would
similarly reflect violations of CITES trade controls.

Legislation and regulations
Regulation of harvest, manufacture and domestic trade. The main laws governing harvesting of medicinal plants in India are the Indian Forest Act (1927), and, to a lesser extent, the Wildlife (Protection) Act(1927/1991/2002). The Indian Forest Act (1927) consolidates the law relating to forest produce, the transit
thereof and duty thereon, and empowers State Governments to regulate the transit of forest produce, e.g.
medicinal plants. The Act deals specifically with reserved, protected, and village forests. Almost all theStates and Union Territories in India have regulations regarding harvest, transit and trade in medicinal
plants. Most have established lists of species banned from harvest from forests (“Negative lists”), which
include threatened plants (JAIN 2000).
The Indian Forest Act (1927) has been adopted by most of the States and is directly applicable to the Union Territories of India. The remaining States have enacted State Forest Acts of their own, which arelargely based on the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Acts of the States have been amended from time totime as required. The States have framed Rules under the Acts to protect and preserve the forest wealthof their respective States (JAIN 2000).
The State of Jammu & Kashmir has specifically included Dioscorea deltoidea in the Forest Act as important forest produce for regulation (JAIN 2000). The Kuth Act (1978) of Jammu & Kashmir provides for conservation, preservation and protection of the CITES Appendix I species Kuth Saussurea lappa and its
produce in the State. The Act has been extended to several other plant species, including Dioscorea deltoidea. Stringent penalties are provided for under the Act (for first offence - imprisonment up to two years
or fine up to INR5000 (USD114.5) or both; for subsequent offence - imprisonment up to four years or fine
up to INR10 000 (USD229) or both).
The Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules (1977) were amended in 1994 andestablish “pass/export permit fees” for specified medicinal plants (this relates to exports from the Staterather than the country). The trade in some important and threatened medicinal plants in the State has
been restricted or banned. In 1994, the pass/export permit fee for Dioscorea deltoidea was set at
INR900/100 kg (USD21/100 kg); it was also at this level in 2004 (RASTOGI & PANT 2004). Other states
have similarly established local controls and fee structures on domestic trade in native medicinal species

32Dioscorea deltoidea(see JAIN 2000 for a state-by-state analysis of legislation relevant to the harvest and trade of medicinal
plants).
Wildlife harvest and domestic trade controls are implemented in Nepal’s national parks, conservation
areas and protected areas via the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973); elsewhere in the
country, implementation is via the Forest Act (1993) and the accompanying Forest Regulation (1995)(AMATYA in litt. 2005, OLSEN in litt. 2000, SHRESTA in litt. 2000). A summary of these and related controls
for medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products has been compiled by the Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) and can be found on their website (BINAYEE undated).
The Forest Act and Regulation stipulate rules pertaining to the collection of forest products. Collection is
authorized via licences issued by District Forest Officers (DFO). Licences are required to specify the collection area; the period in which harvest is to take place; the species and quantities to be collected; andmethod of harvest (AMATYA in litt. 2005, ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). Licence applicants are required
to provide this information and specify the purpose of collection. In accordance with the Regulation, District Forest Officers are required to verify the quantity of medicinal plants collected, collect any associatedfees, and issue a “release order”, which is required to transport harvested plants out of the district of origin. The release order should state: the species and quantity transported, the destination, and the period
in which transportation must take place (ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). There is also a provision to allow harvest and trade licences to be sold at auction (ARYAL 2000). No limits or quotas have been established for the harvest of Dioscorea deltoidea (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
In their 2001 study in the Dhading District, PANDIT & THAPA (2004) found that implementation of these licensing provisions was low in government forests, reflecting a combination of a lack of resource management rights among the local population and low government enforcement capacity. Inspection of harvested materials to ensure compliance with licence provisions was considered to be low. Adherence tolicence provisions was similarly found to be low in community forests, where permitting provisions still
applied, but harvest rights were restricted to members of forest user groups. Others have similarly noted
low levels of implementation of national harvest and trade controls for medicinal plants and other NTFPs(e.g. see MULLIKEN 2000, OLSEN 2005).
The harvest of medicinal plants in Pakistan is controlled by the Forest Department. Three different typesof harvest controls were reported as practiced (IQBAL 1991, RAPA 1987):•

Leasing the area for collection of medicinal herbs. This method was said to have been used in the
Hazara forests in the North-West Frontier Province;•

Collection by the traders from local people who pay nominal royalties to the Forest Department. Thismethod was said to be common in the Malakand forests in the North-West Frontier Province;•

Fixed quantities are auctioned off, e.g. by the Forest Department in Azad Kashmir.

Before taking plants from the site of collection, the local Divisional Forest Officer must be approached forthe issue of a transport permit, obtainable on the payment of a fixed duty. The size of the consignment
and transport permits are checked at forest exit points. Commercial exploitation from reserved forests isforbidden throughout Pakistan by order of the Inspector General of Forests, Islamabad (MULLIKEN 2000).
Regulation of international trade
CITES listing: Dioscorea deltoidea was included in CITES Appendix II in 1975, and until September 2007
was listed with Annotation #1 (designates “all parts and derivatives, except: a) seeds, spores and pollen(including pollinia); b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported insterile containers; and c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants”). The annotation was modified at
CITES CoP 14 (The Hague, June 2007), as part of a Plants Committee process to clarify and harmonise
annotations for medicinal plants. The revised annotation, effective 13 September 2007, “Designates allparts and derivatives, except: a) seeds, spores and pollen (including pollinia); b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers; c) cut flowers of artificially
propagated plants; and d) fruits and parts and derivatives thereof of artificially propagated plants of thegenus Vanilla."
CITES is implemented in India through a combination of the Wildlife Protection Act (1972/1991/2002) andthe Export and Import Policy (EXIM) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act (1992) andthe Customs Act (1962). The Wildlife (Protection) Act prohibits export of a number of species, including all
six CITES Appendix I plant species native to India, of which one, Saussurea lappa, is a medicinal plant.
Policy on trade in wildlife and wildlife products is established via the EXIM policy, which is revised periodically. The policy, as far as it concerns wildlife, is decided in consultation with the Director of Wildlife PresReview of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

33ervation of the Government of India, who is the CITES Management Authority and oversees CITES implementation in the country. The Director has four Regional Deputy Directors and four sub-regional officesof wildlife preservation, these serving as assistant CITES Management Authorities. The EXIM policy is put
into effect via the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act (1992) and enforced
via the Customs Act (CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA in litt. 2004). The export of wild-collected
Dioscorea deltoidea from India has been prohibited through its listing on the Negative List of Exports under the EXIM policy since at least March 1996 (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998) if not since March 1994 (LANGE &WÄCHTER 1996).
The EXIM policy was embedded within a broader Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004–2009, thischange coming into effect on 1 September 2004. The Foreign Trade Policy aims at doubling India’s sharein global trade and expanding employment opportunities, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, andincludes a Special Agricultural Produce Scheme, promoting the export of, inter alia, minor forest produce
such as medicinal plants and their value-added products. The policy outlines that all export and import
shall be “free”, i.e. unrestricted, unless regulated under any legislation. Goods imported in accordancewith this policy may be exported in the same form without a licence, provided that there is no import orexport restriction for the items. Even goods restricted for import may be imported under Customs Bond forexport without a licence, provided that the items are freely exportable. Specific note is made in the policythat this does not preclude the application of other laws (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2004).
Import and export restrictions for specific products are established via India’s ITC (HS) classifications inaccordance with the broader policy. Several categories relevant to CITES-listed species have been identified as goods allowed to be imported without restriction (i.e. free of import duties or quotas), e.g. “medicinal plants, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered” (Schedule 1 Chapter 12), lac, gums,
resins and other vegetable extracts (Schedule 1, Chapter 13), pharmaceutical products (Schedule 1,
Chapter 30) and essential oils (Schedule 1, Chapter 33). Although instructions under the EXIM policy for
1997-2002 stipulated that imports of plants, products and derivatives were subject to CITES provisions(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), the low levels of trade data for imports of CITES-listed species into India indicatethat these provisions were not implemented effectively.
It does not appear that any CITES-related import controls were established via the policy for 2004-2009
until early 2006, nor that these existed under other legislation (with the exception of Saussurea lappa),
with the effect that imports of CITES-listed medicinal plant species was uncontrolled. However, on
6 February 2006 the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items were amended such that importsof Rauvolfia spp. (all species) are to be subject to CITES provisions (Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce Notification No. 42 RE-2005/2004-09). Similar amendments were made for
Kuth (Saussurea lappa) roots, cacti, agarwood and agar oil. This would seem to indicate that CITES tradecontrols are not required for imports of other CITES-listed plant species, however confirmation of this isrequired.
As stipulated in Chapter 12 of the ITC (HS) classifications, the export of plants, plant portions, their derivatives and extracts of species included in CITES Appendix I and II obtained from the wild is generally prohibited. Further clarification is required to confirm whether this applies to wild specimens regardless of
their country of origin, or to only those specimens obtained within India. An “Export Licensing Note” appended to Chapter 12 specifies 29 plant taxa for which export is generally prohibited. This list includes
Dioscorea deltoidea. An exception for both CITES species and those listed in the Licensing Note is madefor the export of “formulations”, defined as including “products which may contain portions/extracts ofplants on the prohibited list but only in unrecognizable and physically inseparable form” and “value-added
formulations as well as herbal Ayurvedic” (Chapter 12, Export Licensing Note 3). It is not clear whether theterm “recognizable” is defined per the CITES interpretation of “readily recognizable” such that if the ingredients of a particular formulation of Ayurvedic medicine are listed on the packaging, then they are considered to be “recognizable”. The instructions include a note that states that “no certificate from any authorities whatsoever shall be required for their [formulations] export,” implying that no CITES permits would be
required for such exports. This would appear to allow for trade in violation of CITES for species included in
the Appendices with Annotation #1, including e.g. Dioscorea deltoidea. Export Licensing Note 2 states thatexport permits are required, however it is not clear if this applies only to cultivated specimens, which areallowed to be exported (see below) or also to formulations. CITES Management Authority staff have advised that, if Customs staff refer a shipment of “formulations” containing CITES-listed species to the Management Authority for clearance, then issuance of a CITES export permit will be required (AARTI in litt.
2005).
A further exception is provided for exports of wild CITES-listed species on a case-by-case basis for “lifesaving drugs”, which could presumably be applied to any medicinal species. However, in this case a34

Dioscorea deltoidea

CITES permit would be required, with such trade only allowed on recommendation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Exports of plants produced via cultivation are allowed subject to obtaining a transit pass from the relevant
Divisional Forest Officer if the plants were cultivated in sites within forests, or a Certificate of Cultivationfrom a District Agriculture, Horticulture or Forest Officer if cultivated at sites outside forests. Export Licensing Note 2 included in this schedule states that “…however, in respect of CITES species, a CITES permitof export shall be required”. As noted above, it appears that this provision relates to all but formulations,however this requires further clarification.
It does not appear that export restrictions on wild specimens of CITES-listed species apply to imported
specimens, however this requires confirmation, nor does it appear that there are any specific provisions
made for controlling re-exports of CITES-listed species, other than as may be required to prove that reexports do not involve wild-collected stock from within India. No reference could be found to an earlier(2003) provision requiring exporters of value-added formulations made out of imported species from thelist of “prohibited plants” to provide an affidavit to Customs authorities at the time of export that the specimens were legally imported (NTF NO. 03/2003 31/03/2003). However, CITES Management Authority staff
state that proof of import is required prior to granting re-export permission, and that they take into account,for example, the amount of unprocessed product that would have been required on import to produce agiven export quantity (JAIN in litt. 2005). CITES Re-export Certificates are issued for such shipments(AARTI 2005).
Exports are required to be limited to the following ports: Mumbai, Nhava Sheva, Kolkata, Cochin, Delhi,
Chennai, Tuticorin, Amritsar, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
2004). It is not clear if this relates to all plants covered under this Customs classification, or only to CITESlisted species and other medicinal species for which export is prohibited.
All violations of the EXIM policy constitute an offence under the Customs Act and are dealt with by Customs officials, who alone have the responsibility to enforce compliance with CITES at border posts. Inspection of consignments by Wildlife Inspectors, co-operating with Customs staff, may also be carried out
at border crossings, but such specialist investigations are few. Enforcement of any violations detected is
the responsibility of the Customs authorities (PANDA in litt. 1998).
There is no specific CITES-implementing legislation in Nepal, however legislation to promote more effective CITES implementation has been under consideration since the late 1990s. If agreed, the Rare (Endangered) Wildlife and Plants Trade Control Act 2057 (2002) would provide a more powerful legal tool for
CITES implementation within Nepal, and includes a number of CITES-relevant provisions (HEINEN &CHAPAGAIN 2002).
Nepal’s CITES Management Authority for plants is the Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation. The CITES Scientific Authority for plants is the Department of Plant Resources, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation. The Management Authority issues export permits for plants covered by
CITES and/or the Forest Act e.g. D. deltoidea, the export of which is allowed in raw and processed form.
The Management Authority also liaises with the Department of Customs, Intelligence, Police and otheragencies. The Ministry of Commerce (Customs) and the police assist in the enforcement of import andexport controls. However, it was noted in 2000 that Customs officers had not been trained in the identification of medicinal plants (BISTA in litt. 2000); it is unknown if training has been provided since then. Personnel from the Department of Forests and District Forest Offices have been posted at the Customs points in
the Terai to examine consignments containing wild flora (ARYAL 2000).
Treaty of Trade between Nepal and India
In an effort to expand trade between their two countries, the Governments of India and Nepal entered intoa bilateral trade agreement in 1991. The treaty provides for preferential treatment (exemption from Customs duty and quantitative restrictions) of trade of certain “primary products”, which include forest producethat has not undergone processing, and Ayurvedic and herbal medicines (Article IV) (ANON. 2002d). Under
this treaty, a certificate of origin issued by the Government of Nepal is the only document required forpresentation to India’s Customs authorities at the time of import (MULLIKEN 2000). Trade in conjunction
with the treaty is required to take place via one of the 22 border crossings designated in Annex A of thetreaty. During the late 1990s, border officials were unaware that CITES documentation might also be required for export (as noted above, under India’s current CITES implementing legislation and the EXIM
Policy, until recently, CITES export permits would not be required to accompany shipments into India in
any event). The treaty contains provisions for stronger domestic measures on the part of national governments, and provides a list of articles not allowed preferential treatment (e.g. cigarettes and alcohol) as anannex. It appears that this Annex could be amended to reflect CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

35

TRAFFIC India informed Government authorities in both India and Nepal of the apparent relevance of thistreaty with respect to CITES trade controls. Initial research results from this study were communicated tothe second Indo-Nepal Trans-border Meeting in February 1999. As a result, the final resolution of thatmeeting called for bringing the bilateral treaty in line with CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
The treaty was extended for a further five years in 2002 and remained in effect until 5 March 2007 (ANON.
2002d). Although some amendments were made, these did not reflect the concerns raised regarding
CITES implementation (AMATYA in litt. 2005). The treaty has been extended for a further five years, andwill remain in effect until 5 March 2012.
Pakistan’s CITES Management Authority is the National Council for the Conservation of Wildlife (NCCW),
under the authority of the Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development, in Islamabad. CITES permits are issued by the NCCW, which is also responsible for formulating countrywide legislation for regulating harvest, national and international trade of CITES-listed species. It issues directives tovarious provincial Forest Departments to control the harvest and trade of medicinal plants and intervenes
wherever a violation of CITES is reported. It is also responsible for inter-provincial and international coordination of CITES implementation. Enforcement officials interviewed at border posts were generally
unaware of CITES requirements.

Conclusions
It appears that harvest for domestic and international trade in this widely distributed yam species has resulted in population declines in at least parts of its range, e.g. India. The main driver of demand appears tobe production of diosgenin, a chemical widely used in the production of steroid hormones, and, more recently, in herbal supplements in the USA. Dioscorea deltoidea is only one of a number of Dioscorea species that produce diosgenin, many of which are already being commercially cultivated on a wide scale,including several within India. It appears that cultivation of D. deltoidea is similarly increasing, particularly
within India. The decline in demand within India for D. deltoidea from Nepal corresponds with increased
production from other sources, and may indicate that wild D. deltoidea stocks are no longer the main, or
perhaps even a key, source of this species for the production of diosgenin. Concern remains regarding
harvest levels, particularly within India, and it is therefore important that domestic trade monitoring is enhanced to determine the extent to which India’s demand is being met through wild stocks. Less is known
regarding trade within Pakistan, which is said to involve several hundred tonnes, and exports from thiscountry, which therefore merit further review.
There has been virtually no international trade recorded in D. deltoidea within CITES annual reports, despite it having been listed in Appendix II of the Convention since 1975, without an annotation removing
trade controls for parts or derivatives. Based on available information, this seems to reflect a failure to
enforce CITES permitting requirements for the export of rhizomes from Nepal and into India, and for theexport and/or re-export of diosgenin from India, rather than an absence of trade.

Possible next steps
Governments of Dioscorea deltoidea range States, and particularly India, Nepal and Pakistan, might consider:•

Undertaking a review of the current status of wild harvest, cultivation and domestic and international
trade of the species;•

Supporting local communities in the development of sustainable harvest practices and management
plans for this species, taking into account the species’ status, regeneration capacity and predicted future demand; and•Reviewing current CITES implementation procedures for the trade in this species with a view to implementing CITES trade controls for both raw materials (rhyzomes), extracts and finished products.

With India the apparent centre of processing and trade of this species for the production of extracts, theGovernment of India might consider:•Reviewing the species, source and quantities of Dioscorea currently used by India’s manufacturing
and pharmaceutical industries;•

Encouraging industries reliant on this species to support development of sustainable harvest regimes,
and to ensure that all raw materials are sourced from sustainable and legal sources; and•Evaluating likely future demand for this species to underpin future management planning, including
with regard to the potential need for increased cultivation.

36

Dioscorea deltoidea

References
AARTI, Ms. CITES Enforcement Inspector, CITES Management Authority of India (2005): pers. comm. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plants Consultant India (16.05.2005).
AMATYA, G., Project Manager, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and NTFPs Project. IUCN Nepal (2005): inlitt. to TRAFFIC International.
ANON. (1996): Papers presented at the First Asian Symposium on Industrial Processing and Utilization of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, 1996. [reference cited in BATUGAL & al. 2004]
ANON. (2000): Ikisan, website on Information/Knowledge Exchange for Indian farmers. http://www.ikisan.
com/mp/cache/m_diascorea.asp (Viewed 04.01.2005).
ANON. (2002a): Plants for a Future, database (1997-2002) http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?
Dioscorea+deltoidea&CAN=LATIND (Viewed 04.01.2005).
ANON. (2002b): North East India Region (NER) Databank, North Eastern Development Finance Corporation
Ltd. http://databank.nedfi.com/content.php?menu=102019&page_id=727 (Viewed 04.01.2005).
ANON. (2002c): Tripura's Herbal Industry Facing Stiff Foreign Competition. http://www.indiatraveltimes.
com/ayurveda/oct02_feb03.html (Viewed 10.02.2005).
ANON. (2002d). Treaty of Trade Between His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India. http://www.tpcnepal.org.np/tagree/treatyoftradeind.htm.
ANON. (2003): Innvista website on root vegetables. http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/vegetables/
yams.htm (Viewed 26.04.2005).
ANON. (undated): The Steroid Story. Wyeth India. http://www.wyethindia.com/therapyareas/steroids
story.asp (Viewed 11.03.2005).
ARYAL, R.S. (2000): Legislative framework and the protection of medicinal plants in Nepal. In: WATANABE,
T., A. TAKANO, M.S. BISTA & H.K. SAIJU (Eds.): Proceeding of Nepal-Japan Joint Symposium on
conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, Nov. 6-11.11.2000, pp. 27-32,
Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR),
Japan.
AYENSU, E.S. (1996): World Medicinal Plant Resources. pp. 11-42. In: Chopra, V.L. & T.N. Khoshoo (Eds.)(1996): Conservation for Productive Agriculture. ICAR, New Delhi, India. [reference cited in
BATUGAL & al. 2004]
BATUGAL, P.A, J. KANNIAH, L.S. YOUNG & J.T. OLIVER (Eds.) (2004): Medicinal plants research in Asia, Volume 1: The Framework and Project Workplans. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
Regional Office for Asia, the Pacific and Oceania (IPGRI-APO), Serdang, Selangor DE, Malaysia.
http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/pdf/944.pdf (Viewed 05.2005).
BHATTARAI, N.K. (1997): Biodiversity-people interface in Nepal. In: BODEKER, G., K.K.S. BHAT, J. BURLEY &P. VANTOMME (Eds.): Medicinal Plants for Forest Conservation and Health Care. Non-wood Forest
Products 11: 78-86, (FAO) Rome, Italy.
BINAYEE, S.B. (undated): Government Regulations in NTFPs Trade. ANSAB. http://www.ansab.org/
News_Fol/government_regulation.htm (Viewed 24.04.2005).
BISTA, M.S. (2000): in litt. to the CITES Secretariat (23.02.2000).
CHAUHAN, N.S. (1999): Medicinal and aromatic plants of Himachal Pradesh. 190-194 pp., Indus Publishing
Company, New Delhi, India.
CHOPRA, R.N., S.L. NAYAR & L.C. CHOPRA (1986): Glossary of Indian Medicinal Plants (Including the Supplement). Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, India. [reference cited in ANON.
2002a]CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): CITES Annual Report 2003. Government of India, New
Delhi.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant.
DE BEER, J.H. (1993): Non-wood forest products in Indochina - Focus: Viet Nam, FAO, Rome.
http://www.giaodiem.com/docbao-vn/nonwood_forest-vn.htm

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

37

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (2004): Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. Ministry of commerce& Industry, Government of India, New Delhi on http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/ (Viewed 16.01.2005).
DOBRIYAL, R.M., G.S. SINGH, K.S. RAO & K.G. SAXENA (1997): Medicinal plant resources in Chhakinal watershed in North-western Himalaya. Journal of Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants 5: 15-27.
FAO (1994): Non-wood forest products in Asia. RAPA Series No. 28. Bangkok, Thailand, FAO Regional
Office for Asia and the Pacific.
FAROOQI, A.A. & B.S. SREERAMU (2001): Cultivation of medicinal and aromatic crops. -518 pp., University
Press (India) Limited, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029 (A.P.), India.
GUPTA, M.P. (1988): Present status and future prospects for the cultivation and collection of medicinal
plants of Himachal Pradesh. Indian Forester 114: 19-25.
GUPTA, M. (2005): pers. comm. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (16.01.2005).
HEINEN, J. & D.P. CHAPAGAIN (2002): On the expansion of species protection in Nepal: Advances and pitfalls of new efforts to implement and comply with CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy 5: 235-250.
HEINONEN, J. & K. VAINIO-MATTILA (1999): Poverty reduction & environmental management in remote
greater Mekong subregion Watersheds project (Phase I). Biodiversity/Ecotourism Assessments in
Yunnan, China Special Report ADB RETA 5771, Helsinki, Finland.
HUSSAIN, A. (1992): Status report on cultivation of medicinal plants in NAM countries. Publication and Information Directorate, New Delhi, India.
HUSSAIN , A., P. SINGH, & G.N. SRIVATAVA (1979): Sapogenin bearing species of Yams and their cultivationin India. Farm Bulletin no. 14, CIMAP, Lucknow, India.
IQBAL, M. (1991): Non-timber forest products: their income-generation potential for rural women in NorthWest Frontier Province (Pakistan). International Labor Organization and Government of NWFP.
Peshawar, Pakistan.
IUCN (2006): 2006 IUCN of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org (Downloaded on 31.10.2006).
IUCN NEPAL (2004): National Register of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Revised and updated). -xiii+202
pp. IUCN, Nepal.
IUCN PAKISTAN (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
JAIN, A.K. (2000): Regulation of collection, transit and trade of medicinal plants and other non-timber forest
produce in India – A compendium. xxix +529. TRAFFIC-India/WWF India, New Delhi, India.
JAIN, P., Medicinal Plant Consultant, India (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
KAUL, M.K. (1997): Medicinal Plants of Kashmir & Ladakh. Indus Publication, New Delhi, India.
KAUL, M.K., Head, Biodiversity and Applied Botany, Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu, India (2005):
in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (05.01.2005).
KHAN, A.I. (2002): Medicinal and economic plants, sustainable use demonstrations Nanga Parbat conservancy northern areas. Mountain Areas Conservancy Project, Gilgit, Pakistan. http://www.macppk.org/docs/Medicinal_plants.pdf
LANGE, D. (1999): in litt. to the German CITES Scientific Authority (15.04.1999).
LANGE, D. (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
LANGE, D. & U. SCHIPPMANN (1999): Checklist of medicinal and aromatic plants and their trade names covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97. Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Unpublished report,
Bonn, Germany.
LANGE, D. & M. WÄCHTER (1996): Untersuchung der gefährdung von pflanzenarten durch den internationalen heilpflanzenhandel mit Indien unter besonderer berücksichtigung des handels zwischen Indien
und Deutschland. - 101 pp., Annexes, Unpublished report, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
LOC, P.K. (1986): List of rare and endangered plant species of Viet Nam (1986-1988). [reference cited in
the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
MAITI, S. (2004): Inventory, documentation and status of medicinal plants research in India. In: BATUGAL,
P.A, KANNIAH, J., YOUNG, L.S. & J.T. OLIVER (Eds.) (2004): Medicinal Plants Research in Asia,

38

Dioscorea deltoidea

Volume 1: The Framework and Project Workplans. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute– Regional Office for Asia, the Pacific and Oceania (IPGRI-APO), Serdang, Selangor DE, Malaysia. http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/pdf/944.pdf
MALLA, S.B., P. R. SHAKYA, K.R. RAJBHANDARI, N.K. BHATTARAI & N.N. SUBEDI (1995): Minor forest productsof Nepal. General status and trade. - 27 pp., Annex, Forest Resource Informat. System Project,
Kathmandu, Nepal (FRIS Project Paper 4).
MANANDHAR, N.P. (2002): Plants and people of Nepal. – +599pp. Timber Press, Inc. Portland, Oregon
97204, USA.
MOLUR, S. & S. WALKER (Eds.) (1998): Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) workshop report. Selected medicinal plants of northern, northeastern and central India. Lucknow 21-25
January 1997. - iv+64 pp., ZOO Outreach Organization, CBSG India, Coimbatore.
MORTON, J.F. (1977): Major medicinal plants botany, culture and uses. Charles C. Thomas, Illinois, USA,431 pp.
MULLIKEN, T.A. (2000): Implementing CITES for Himalayan medicinal plants Nardostachys grandiflora andPicrorhiza kurrooa. In: TRAFFIC Bulletin 18: 63-72.
NAYAR, M.P. & A.R.K. SASTRY (Eds.) (1988): Red data book of Indian plants 2. - 268 pp., Botanical Surveyof India, Calcutta, India.
NEW ERA Ltd. (2001): A study on non-timber forest products of Bagmati Integrated Watershed Management Program. Kathmandu, Nepal, Bagmati Integrated Watershed Management Program. [reference cited in VANTOMME & al. 2002]
OLSEN, C.S. (1998): The trade in medicinal and aromatic plants from central Nepal to northern India. Economic Botany 52 (3): 279-292.
OLSEN, C.S. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (22.02.2000).
OLSEN, C.S. (2005): Trade and conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants: Nardostachys grandiflora DC.
and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennel) Hong. Biological Conservation 125(4): 505-514.
OLSEN, C.S. & H.O. LARSEN (2003): Alpine medicinal plant trade and Himalayan mountain livelihood
strategies. The Geographical Journal 169(3):243-254.
PANDA, S. (1998): in litt. to TRAFFIC India (09.11.1998).
PANDIT, B.H. & G.B. THAPA (2004): A tragedy of non-timber forest resources in the mountain commons of
Nepal. Environment and Conservation 30: 283-292.
PRADHAN, R. (1993): Annotations to WCMC plant list for Bhutan dated 31 August 1993. [reference cited in
the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
RAPA (1987): Forest based rural enterprises in Pakistan. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA),
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Bangkok, Thailand.
RASTOGI, A. & R. PANT (2004): FSC Certification Feasibility Assessment Report Himachal Pradesh, India.
World Wide Fund for Nature India, Delhi, India.
RAWAL, R.B. (1997): Status of commercialization of medicinal and aromatic plants in Nepal. In: KARKI, M.,
A.N. RAO, V. RAMANATHA RAO & J.T. WILLIAMS (Eds.): The role of bamboo, rattan and medicinal
plants in mountain development. Proceedings of a workshop held at the Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal, 15-17.5.1996. pp. 174-188, International Development Research Centre, New Delhi(INBAR Technical Report 15).
RAWAT, G.S., Head, Habitat Ecology Department, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India (2005): in litt.
to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (10.01.2005).
SAEED, A. (1997): Medicinal, culinary and aromatic plants in Pakistan. In: FAO (1997) Medicinal, culinary
and aromatic plants of the near East, Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting organizedby the Forest Products Division FAO Forestry Department and the FAO Regional Office for the
Near East, 19 - 21 May 1997 Cairo, Egypt. http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_
file=/docrep/x5402e/x5402e15.htm (Viewed 27.04.2005).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

39

SABRA, A. & S. WALTER (2001): FAO Non-wood forest products in the near East: A regional and national
overview. Country report Pakistan on main non-wood forest products. Report for FAO Forest Resource Assessment 2000. http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/003/
y1797e/y1797e15.htm (Viewed 27.04.2005).
SAMANT, S.S., U. DHAR & L.M.S. PALNI (1998): Medicinal plants of Indian Himalaya: Diversity distribution
potential value. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, Uttaranchal, India.
SAQIB, Z. & A. SULTAN (2004): Ethnobotany of Palas Valley, Pakistan. http://www.siu.edu/~ebl/leaflets/
zafeer.htm (Viewed 26.04.2005).
SCHIPPMANN, U. (2001) Medicinal Plants Significant Trade Study CITES project S-109; BfN Skripten,
Bonn, Germany.
SHAH, N.C. (1983): Endangered medicinal and aromatic plants of U.P. Himalaya. In: JAIN, S.K. & R.R. RAO(Eds.): An assessment of threatened plants of India - pp. 40-49, Howrah, India.
SHARMA, U.R., PhD, Director General, His Majesty’s Government Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forests, Nepal (2006): in litt. to U. Schippman, CITES Scientific Authority,
Germany (16.05.06).
SHER, H. (2001): Study of economic and medicinal plants in Qashqar and Trichmir conservacies. Pakistan.
[reference cited in KHAN 2002]
SHRESTHA, T.B. (1988): Pers. comm. 24 June 1988. Nepal RDB Project: An inventory of endemic, endangered and threatened plants. WWF Project no. 53. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
SHRESTHA, T.B. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (25.02.2000).
TANDON R, T.N. MANOHARA, B.H.M. NIJALINGAPPA, K.R.SHIVANNA (2001): Pollination and pollen–pistil interaction in oil palm, Elaeis guineensis. Annals of Botany 87: 831–838.
TRAFFIC INDIA (1998): Medicinal plants significant trade study. CITES project (S 109). India country report. - 103 pp. Unpublished report, New Delhi, India.
TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database, maintained by the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL CENTRE (2004): Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). http://www.umm.
edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/DehydroepiandrosteroneDHEAcs.html.
USFWS (2004): LEMIS trade database for CITES exports and imports.
VANTOMME, P., A. MARKKULA & R.N. LESLIE (Eds.) (2002): Non-Wood Forest Products in 15 Countries of
Tropical Asia. An Overview. FAO, Rome, Italy. pp. 199.
VED, D.K., G.A. KINHAL & al. (2003): Conservation assessment & management prioritisation for the medicinal plants of northwest Himalayan states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh andUttaranchal. Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.
WALTER, K.S. & H.J. GILLETT (Eds.) (1998): 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants. - lxii+862 pp., IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
ZAIDI, S.H. (undated): Medicinal plant resources of Hindukush-Himalayan region, status and prospects forutilization. IUCN Pakistan, Pakistan. [reference cited in KHAN 2002]

40

Nardostachys grandiflora

Nardostachys grandiflora
Taxonomy

Nardostachys grandiflora DC. (family Valerianaceae)
Confusion regarding the taxonomy and trade names of Nardostachys grandiflora wasnoted in the IUCN Analyses of India’s successful proposal to include this species in CITES
Appendix II (ANON. 1997).
PRAKASH & MEHROTRA (1989) recognized two distinct species, N. grandiflora andN. jatamansi, providing a key illustrating differences and describing N. jatamansi as morewidespread than N. grandiflora, but threatened. The US Department of Agriculture Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) considers Nardostachys jatamansi (JONES)
DC to be a synonym of Valeriana jatamansi JONES, and Nardostachys jatamansi auct. to
be a synonym of N. jatamansi DC. USDA-GRIN treats N. chinensis BATALIN as a valid
species, giving a range limited to Qinghai and Sichuan China (USDA 2006). In most otherrecent accounts and floras, only one taxon is recognized. However, authors vary as towhich is the accepted name, either N. grandiflora DC or N. jatamansi DC (SCHIPPMANN inlitt. 1997).
This review will treat the genus Nardostachys as monospecific, and use the name Nardostachys grandiflora to refer to the species under consideration. All references to Valeriana jatamansi will refer to the valid species V. jatamansi JONES.

Synonyms

N. jatamansi DC., N. chinensis, Fedia grandiflora WALL., Nardostachys gracilis KITAM.,
Patrinia jatamansi D. DON, Valeriana jatamansi auct. non JONES, Valeriana jatamansi
sensu D. DON (BHATTARAI in litt. 2005, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1997, JAIN 1994, LANGE &SCHIPPMANN 1999, SCHIPPMANN in litt. 1997).

Trade names

Bala tagra (Pakistan), Balchara (India), Balchard (India), Balchhad (India, nep), Bhulte(India, nep), Bhutijatt (Kashmir), Gansong (chi), Gansongxiang (chi), Indian Nard (eng),Indian Valerian (eng), Indische valeriaan (nld), Indischer Baldrian (ger), Jata Jatila (India),
Jatalasi (hin), Jatamashi (tam), Jatamansi (India, ben, hin, guj, Gurung, tel, kan, mal, mar,nep and Pakistan), Kalichhad (guj), Kan Sung Hsiang (chi), Kukilipot (Kashmir), K’U Mi
Ch’E (?), Mansi (Kumaon region in Uttaranchal), Masi (Garhwal), Masijara (nep),
Mushkbala (Pakistan), Musk root (eng), Nard (eng), Pampe (bhu), Pangbu (Sherpa), Poi(Tamang), Songban (chi), Spikenard (eng) Sumbul ut Teeb (India), Sumbul Ul Tib (Pakistan), Sumbulu (Pakistan), Tagara (?), Valeriane Indienne (fre) (AMATYA in litt. 2005,
ANON. undated, DHARMANANDA undated, JAIN in litt. 2005, RAWAT in litt. 2005, SUBEDI &SHRESTHA 1999). Herbal traders in Tanakpur, Lucknow, Kanpur, Kannauj and Khari Baoli
markets in India mostly use the Nepali names Balchhad and Bhulte (BHATTARAI in litt.
2005).

Description. Nardostachys grandiflora is a long-lived, erect perennial herb, growing to a height of 1060 cm. The plant stem, which is partly underground (i.e. a rhizome), has a long, thickened, woody root
stock that is generally enclosed in fibers from the petioles of dead leaves. Rhizomes are short, thick, anddark-grey in colour, and crowned with the reddish-brown coloured, tufted, fibrous remains of petioles ofrootstock leaves (AMATYA & STHAPIT 1994, ANON. undated). DUTTA & JAIN (2000) describe the rhizome as
being 2.5-8 cm long, densely covered with silky reddish brown fibres matted together. A transverse cut of
the rhizome reveals a reddish brown surface and a prominent ring surrounding porous wood, with short
fractures exposing a reddish brown uneven surface. BHATTARAI (in litt. 2005) draws attention to the thickhairs covering the rhizome, which set it apart from Valeriana jatamansi, a species with which it has been
said to be confused in trade. The upper portion of the stem is hairy (AMATYA & STHAPIT 1994).
Leaves develop from the rootstock and stem; those that develop from the rootstock are 15-18 cm long and2.5 cm wide, longitudinally veined, and have a petiole, while those that arise from the stem are in one or
two pairs, approximately 7.5 cm long and 2.5 cm wide, oblong or ovate in shape, and sessile (AMATYA &STHAPIT 1994). The inflorescence may have one terminal capitate cluster, frequently with broad ovate
bracts, or 3-7 terminal and axillary clusters. The flowers are rosy, pale pink or blue in dense cymes. Flowering takes place in June-July, and fruiting from August onwards (GHIMIRE & al. 2005). Fruits are oneseeded achenes, with approximately seven seeds per flowering ramet (GHIMIRE & al. 2005), small withwhite hairs and crowned by calyx teeth (AMATYA & STHAPIT 1994). Seed germination, which takes place in
May-June, is very low (10-20% according to NAUTIYAL & al. 2003), with no persistent seed bank (GHIMIRE

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

41

& al. 2005). The species grows vegetatively with successive ramets (vegetative clones) produced very
close together in a dense clump (GHIMIRE & al. 2005).
Distribution. Afghanistan (?), China, Bhutan, India, Myanmar (?), Nepal, Pakistan (?).
Nardostachys grandiflora has been confirmed to occur from Tehri Garhwal (Uttar Pradesh, now Utturanchal, India) in the western Himalayas to Yunnan and southwest Sichuan in the east and Tibet, its range
including China, Bhutan, India, and Nepal (ANON. 1970, KIHARA 1955, KITAMURA 1954, TIWARI & JOSHI
1974, WEBERLING 1975). Its occurrence in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Myanmar is questionable (see below). AMATYA & al. (1995) cite an altitudinal range of 2200-5000 m, OLSEN (2005a) of 3200-4500 m and
GHIMIRE & al. (2005) of 3500 to over 5000 m. It typically grows on rocky outcrops, but can also be found inmeadows, shrubland and forests (GHIMIRE & al. 2005).
In China Nardostachys grandiflora can be found in Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces and the Xijang(Tibet) Autonomous Region (USDA 2006). The species has a large range in India, being found from Himachal Pradesh to Arunachal Pradesh, and including the states of Uttaranchal, Sikkim and Assam(CHAUHAN 1999, VED & al. 2003a, 2003b) and Jammu & Kashmir (ANON. undated, DUTTA & JAIN 2000).
The species is found on moist and dry rocky surfaces and in crevices in the alpine regions of the Garhwal
Himalaya, the soil generally sandy or silty loam, acidic and with a high organic content (NAUTIYAL & al.
2003). Population densities of sample plots containing N. grandiflora were found to range from a low of 19
plants per m2 to a high of 32 plants per m2, with significant variation in morphological characteristics. In the
Sikkim Himalaya, the species is found at an elevation of 3600-4800 m, RAI & al. (2000) providing a map of
the species’ distribution in that area.
Nardostachys grandiflora is found throughout the Himalayan region of Nepal. However, there is no detailed information on the species’ distribution or status (OLSEN 2005a). According to AMATYA & al. (1995), it
is found in greatest numbers in the Mid-Western Development Region (Dolpa, Humla, and Jumla etc.), its
population gradually decreasing towards the east. Populations are concentrated in the districts of Jumla,
Dolpa, Humla, and Kalikot, and to some extent the northern part of Gorkha, Rasuwa, and the southernpart of Ganesh Himal (Nuwakot District) and Mustang (AMATYA & al. 1995). N. grandiflora is thinly distributed at elevations above 3300-3400 m. However, the population density in areas where it does occur ishigher above 3400 m (THAPA & PRASAD 2000).
The species grows in dry, open pine forests, among dwarf rhododendron and juniper scrub, on open,
stony and grassy slopes, in alpine meadows or small depressions, and on the turf of glacial flats (AMATYA& STHAPIT 1994). Soils in the species’ natural habitat are moderately acidic, sandy loam, with high organic
matter and low phosphate content. Based on its distribution, the species is not believed to favour extremely dry or wet areas (AMATYA & al. 1995).
Conflicting information is available on the distribution of the species. According to BHATTARAI (in litt. 2005),
its occurrence in Afghanistan and Myanmar, as referenced in a draft data sheet for a 1997 Conservationand Management Plan (CAMP) workshop (ANON. 1997), is not confirmed. No other sources were identified referring to the species in Afghanistan, and it seems likely that earlier references to its occurrence
there could reflect confusion between this species and Valeriana jatamansi, which does occur in Afghanistan according to a US Department of Agriculture database (USDA 2006). Nardostachys grandiflora issaid to occur in the state of Shan according to the Checklist of Plants of Myanmar (ANON. 2003), however
no further information on its occurrence there was identified.
There are also questions regarding the species’ occurrence in Pakistan. AKHTER (in litt. 2005) contends
that N. grandiflora does not occur in Pakistan, and notes that it is not listed in the Flora of Pakistan (NASIR
1976). IUCN PAKISTAN (in litt. 2005) agrees, suggesting that information indicating its distribution in thatcountry could reflect confusion with Valeriana jatamansi. The species’ reported occurrence in Punjab,
India suggests that it might be likely to occur in neighbouring areas of Pakistan (ANON. 1996). According to
KAHN (in litt. 2005), the species has been reported from Shogran in the Mansehra District, North West
Frontier Province. However, a 1976 review of the medicinal plants of the Siran Valley in this district reported the occurrence of Valeriana jatamansi, but not Nardostachys grandiflora (SHAH & KHAN, undated).
Population status and threats. There are gaps in the information available concerning the population
status of this species throughout much of its range. However, it is clear that populations have been declining in many areas, particularly in India and Nepal, owing to overharvest and habitat loss.
According to RAWAT (in litt. 2005), human-induced habitat loss and degradation continue to be the major
threats to the species in India. In 1997, during a Conservation Assessment and Management Plan
(CAMP) workshop, the species was assessed as “seriously threatened” there due to an observed population decline of 80% during the preceding 10 years. In Uttaranchal, India, the loss was estimated to be42

Nardostachys grandifloraaround 75% (KALA in litt. 1997, RAO in litt. 1997). In 2003, Nardostachys grandiflora was assessed at a
CAMP workshop as Endangered2001 in Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh and CriticallyEndangered2001 in Uttaranchal, due to habitat degradation and loss and also harvest and trade (VED & al.
2003a & 2003b). KAUL (2001) reported that the species does not respond well to habitat modification in
the Kashmir Himalayas, and considers it to be “critically endangered”.
In Nepal, overharvest of rhizomes, especially to supply the demand within India, seems to be the mainthreat. Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, due to over-grazing; and forest degradation, fires andlogging were considered secondary threats to the species in the mid-1990s (AMATYA & STHAPIT 1994,
ANON. 1997). N. grandiflora was assessed as Vulnerable2001 in Nepal during a 2001 CAMP workshop(BHATTARAI & al. 2002). However, OLSEN & LARSEN (2003), while considering the information from the
CAMP workshop a useful starting point, questioned the classifications. They considered the empirical data
upon which the assessments were made to be scant, quantitative information on the status of the resource and on harvest levels across Nepal lacking, and evidence of overharvest inconclusive. While continuing to note a lack of detailed information on the distribution of the species, the stock of available resources or sustainable harvest rates, OLSEN (2005a) draws attention to the research of GHIMIRE & al.
(2005), which indicates that N. grandiflora is very sensitive to harvest, a view also supported by other research.
In a study of commercial non-timber forest products (NTFP) collection in the Malekhukhola watershed(Central Development Region), PANDIT & THAPA (2004) found that collectors rarely left any parts of therhizome in the ground, leaving little chance for regeneration. They considered that the high economic
value combined with a lack of management had accelerated degradation of NTFPs such as N. grandiflorain community and government forests. GHIMIRE & al. (2005) analysed the impact on N. grandiflora of different harvesting regimes in the Dolpa region, finding that even low levels of harvesting had a “strong
negative effect on ramet density, recruitment and survival rate”. The high ramet density in close proximity
to the parent plant was shown to reduce the potential for selective harvesting, these authors concludingthat even low levels of harvest were likely to be unsustainable without long rotation times between harvests. A study of the effect of different harvesting practices in Jumla similarly found that regeneration inassociation with traditional harvest methods was very low (16.33%) (REGMI & al. 2000), with availability for
harvest decreasing as a result of increased harvest to meet demand.
Similar species: Confusion regarding the taxonomy and associated nomenclature applied to Nardostachys grandiflora and Valeriana jatamansi has resulted in related confusion about description of products in trade. This is particularly the case as jatamansi is the most frequently used common name for Nardostachys grandiflora. Based on internet searches and a review of available literature it appears that jatamansi is not used to refer to Valeriana spp., which are generally referred to as valerian, with V. jatamansi
frequently referred to as Indian Valerian. Although MULLIKEN (2000) refers to earlier information indicatingthat mushkbala is a common name for both N. grandiflora and V. jatamansi in Pakistan, this term appears
to be much more commonly, if not universally, applied to the latter species.
There is disagreement regarding the similarity in appearance of the rhizomes of N. grandiflora and thoseof Valeriana jatamansi. The supporting statement of the 1997 proposal to include Nardostachys grandiflora in CITES Appendix II considered that the rhizomes of Valeriana jatamansi and V. officinalis look “superficially more or less alike” and that careful examination was required in order to distinguish them fromeach other (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1997). This point was supported by RAO (in litt. 1997). However,BHATTARAI (in litt. 2005) argues that the species are not similar in appearance, noting that while the rhizomes of N. grandiflora are covered with hairs, the rhizomes of Valeriana jatamansi are completely hairless. As a result, although the two species are used for similar purposes, e.g. incense, he does not believe
they are used as adulterants for each other. AMATYA (in litt. 2005) similarly considers it unlikely that the
species are confused, like BHATTARAI, noting the difference in their morphology and distribution(V. jatamansi is a temperate rather than an alpine species).
GRIEVE (1931) considered the properties of N. grandiflora to be analogous with those of Valeriana jatamansi. The essential oil of Nardostachys grandiflora has an aroma reminiscent of valerian oil Valeriana
jatamansi (AMATYA & STHAPIT 1994) and both oils are mixed. V. jatamansii is more valuable but has alower oil content (KAUL 2001). Information available to IUCN Pakistan (in litt. 2005) indicated that
V. jatamansi is used as a substitute for and to adulterate N. grandiflora.
The rhizomes of two ragwort species, namely Selinum candollii and S. wallichianum (Bhutkesh in Nepali),
are mixed or adulterated with N. grandiflora; alternatively, N. grandiflora may be traded under the name
Bhutkesh. The rhizomes of all three species possess hairs which can confuse traders and others lacking
in identification skills (AMATYA in litt. 2005). The rhizomes of Selinum vaginaturm are considered to beeasily mistaken for N. grandiflora (RAO in litt. 1997).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

43Medicinal uses
Plant parts used for medicinal purposes: Rhizomes and, to a lesser extent, roots.
According to JAIN (1994) and YANG (1996), both the roots and rhizomes of Nardostachys grandiflora areused. Texts referring to the medicinal properties of these species (e.g., ANON. 1993, JAIN 1994, KEYS
1976, YANG 1996) use both “root” and “rhizome” to refer to the plant parts in trade. The text that follows
generally refers to the parts used and traded as “rhizomes”, following LANGE & SCHIPPMANN (1999); however, it should be understood that this may refer to both roots and rhizomes. “Root” is used in cases where
this is the specific term used by the source being cited.
Nardostachys grandiflora has been widely used as medicine for centuries within India. It is valued for its
antispasmodic and stimulant properties and is therefore useful in the treatment of fits and heart palpitations, to treat constipation and regulate urination, menstruation and digestion (JAIN 1994). The species isused in both the Unani and Ayurvedic systems of medicine. It is reportedly also widely used in the modern
medicine industry (CHAUHAN & NAUTIYAL 2005). An ethanolic extract of Nardostachys grandiflora rhizomes
was found to protect against liver damage induced by thioacetamide in rats (ALI & al. 2000).
In Nepal the rhizomes of N. grandiflora are used in brain or uterine tonics, stimulants, external pain killers,
as an antiseptic, for the treatment of epilepsy, hysteria, convulsions, heart palpitations, high blood pressure, fever, anxiety, insomnia, asthma and other bronchial problems and acidity (AMATYA in litt. 2005,
ANON. 1993). They are used the formulation of traditional Ayurvedic medicines as well as modern herbal
preparations (AMATYA in litt. 2005). In the Dolpa region, rhizomes are used by amchi (traditional medicine
practitioners trained in Tibetan medicine) for treating complaints including epilepsy, wounds, coughs, colds
and high blood pressure (GHIMIRE & al. 2005).
Nardostachys grandiflora is used to treat hysteria, epilepsy, neurosis, insomnia, constipation and scorpion
stings in Pakistan. Under the name of Asaroon, the plant is used in nine herbal preparations, according to
the Hamdard Pharmacopoeia (Qarabadain-e-Hamdard), for treatment of hemiplegia (paralysis of one sideof the body, usually following brain injury), Bell’s Palsy, Parkinson’s disease, tremors, indigestion anddeafness due to age (ANON. 1982, KAZMI & SIDDIQUI 1953, KHAN & ZAIDI 1989, ZAMAN & KHAN 1970). According to ARORA (1965), it is used as a single compound to treat hypertension. It is also an ingredient inKhamira Abresham Hakim Arshadwala, which is used extensively to treat hypertension, arrhythmia, palpitation and cardiac debility. It is also said to have been used as an aphrodisiac and to aid memory(MULLIKEN 2000).
In China, medicinal use of N. grandiflora was first recorded in The Compendium of Materia Medica, compiled in the 16th century (FU 1993, ZHANG & al. 1994), with the species still listed in the 1995 edition of thePharmacopoeia of China (ANON. 1995). It is considered to be effective in pain relief, regulating Qi andtreating a “turgid” chest (ZHANG & al. 1994). Based on interviews, the species was not considered to be incommon use in China for medicinal purposes in the late 1990s (MULLIKEN 2000). However, DHARMANANDA(undated) refers to widespread use of “Nardostachys jatamansi” (which he differentiates from Valeriana
jatamansi) and Nardostachys chinensis (considered a synonym of N. grandiflora by most authors) as ananalgesic in China. He comments that the Chinese names given in the Materia Medica, gansong and gansongxiang, refer to the fact that the material is used dried (gan), the location of collection (Songban in
Sichuan) and its aromatic properties (xiang).
Small quantities are used in the preparation of indigenous medicine in Bhutan (MULLIKEN 2000).
Other uses. Nardostachys grandiflora is used for its aromatic as well as its medicinal properties. The
essential oil is said to have a pleasant, heavy, sweet, woody and spicy aroma, reminiscent of valerian oil.
The oil flavour is described as warm and spicy with a slightly bitter, burning power, and the colour noted
as varying with the site of collection, maturity, and nature of the rhizomes (AMATYA & STHAPIT 1994).
In Bhutan, pounded plants are mixed with other plant material and used primarily to manufacture incense,
which is burned during religious rites and ceremonies (MULLIKEN 2000). The demand for incense sticks isvery high, this species being among the commonly used species (VANTOMME & al. 2002). Use as an incense in China appears to be less common. OLSEN (in litt. 2000) believed that use of N. grandiflora inincense, perfumery and in hair oils in the main consumer country, India, may be more common than use
in medicines. RAWAT (in litt. 2005) notes that there is wide local use for incense at higher altitudes in
Uttaranchal. It is also used to promote blackness and growth of hairs, and as an insect repellent (NAUTIYAL
1994, SUBEDI & SHRESTHA 1999), and used as an ingredient in perfumes (EDWARDS 1993, SUBEDI &SHRETHSTA 1999). Rhizomes are used as incense in Nepal, including within Buddhist monasteries(BHATTARAI in litt. 2005). Use as incense is noted in the Dolpa region (GHIMIRE & al. 2005). It is consideredas the best ingredient for the production of traditional and higher-grade incense; the incense is usedwidely, especially at higher altitudes in the Himalayas. Newar communities burn the rhizomes in ritual44

Nardostachys grandiflora

death ceremonies (RAWAT in litt. 2005). In Pakistan, the essential oil is used as a flavouring agent, a hair
tonic to stimulate hair growth and dye the hair black, an insect repellent, a basic ingredient in quality perfumes and in the cosmetic industry (MULLIKEN 2000). N. grandiflora is also said to be made into stick incense and sold in the Middle East (BURBAGE 1981).
Harvest and processing. There is a relatively large and growing body of work on the harvest and tradein medicinal plants in Nepal – over 100 studies according to OLSEN & al. (2002), with several studies witha specific focus on N. grandiflora (e.g. see GHIMIRE & al. 2005, MULLIKEN 2000, OLSEN 2005a).
Collection of wild N. grandiflora in Nepal is highly dependent upon snowfall, and typically takes place from
June to October. Early autumn and late spring snowfalls often cover the plant and prevent extensive collection, which is frequently limited to only 8-10 days due to snowstorms (AMATYA in litt. 2005, AMATYA &STHAPIT 1994). According to GHIMIRE & al. (2005), commercial harvest in the Dolpa region takes place at
any time, depending on market demand, with the exception of the winter snowfall (December-February).
The most favourable season for harvesting was considered to be during monsoon, when the ground wasmoist and so rhizomes could be removed more easily. In some cases commercial harvesting in this region
was associated with herding activities as livestock was moved among high pastures during the summer(April-August) herding season.
Table 1. Estimated annual potential N. grandifloracollection in Nepal (mid-1990s)
Zone/collection centre
Zone: Karnali
Humla
Jumla
Dolpa
Zone: Gandaki
JajarkotBaglung
Zone: Gandaki and Bagmati*
GorkhaTrisuli
RasuwaDhading
Zone: East Nepal
Sagarmatha, Koshi and Mechi

Estimated quantity(tons)
50-100150-200
50-100
50
50
50
100
100
100
50

* Figures include amounts speculated as originatingfrom Tibet, China. Source: AMATYA & al. (1995).

Dry rhizome biomass production varies greatly
with altitude and area, and also varies fromlocation to location within larger areas. Significant differences were found between the
Chaudabise Valley: 5.3-16.9 g root/m2 (LARSEN
2002); the Tila Valley in Jumla: 1.1-57.7 groot/m2 (CECI 1997) and in Manang:
8.6-154.8 g root/m2 (SHRESTHA & al. 1996).
THAPA & PRASAD (2000) conclude that the density of vegetative shoots is higher on southwestern than northwestern slopes, averaging
90 shoots/m2 and 74 shoots/m2 respectively.
Most of the rhizomes in trade are believed tocome from the high mountain areas, with only
small amounts coming from the middle hills(OLSEN 2005a).
The amount harvested also varies from region
to region. In the mid-1990s, the main source ofN. grandiflora was believed to have been areasin the western part of the country according to
AMATYA & al. (1995), who provided estimates of
the quantities of rhizomes that could be collected in different areas (Table 1).

Harvest and trade were believed to be increasing in the Jumla District (Mid-Western Development Region)
during the mid-late 1990s, rising from 14 tons (dry weight) in 1995 to 66 tons in 1996 and 124 tons in 1997
according to the records of the District Forest Office, Jumla, and AMATYA & al. (1995). Surveys of harvesters and traders during 1998 and 1999 indicated that the Eastern and Central Development Regions werethe most important supply areas, followed by the Mid-Western Development Region, with low amounts intrade reported for the Western Development Region (OLSEN 2005a). However, it was noted that exports
from the Western Development Region are likely to be under-represented in this study, OLSEN (2005a)
citing a previous study (OLSEN & HELLES 1997) reported estimated annual exports from Ghorka District tobe from 25-84 t a year.
Reliable figures on harvest and trade of N. grandiflora are lacking, however efforts have been made toestimate harvest and trade volumes based on interviews with harvesters and traders, most notably by Dr.
C.S. OLSEN, working with colleagues including Dr. N. BHATTARAI. Based on district-level surveys of harvesters and traders in 1997 and 1998, combined with information to calculate potential species distribution, OLSEN (2005a) estimated that the annual supply of unprocessed, air-dried rhizomes entering trade in
Nepal ranged from a low of 73 t to a high of 327 t, with harvest in the financial year 1997/98 estimated at
181 t. However, this figure is believed to be an underestimate, with estimated consumption figures suggesting higher harvest rates. Using a combination of supply and consumption estimates, OLSEN (2005a)
calculated the trade (domestic and export) of dried rhizomes of N. grandiflora in Nepal for 1997/98 as in
the order of 300 t.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

45

District Forest Office (DFO) records of harvests for 1997/98 are much lower, approximately 96 t, reflecting
the low level of adherence to, and enforcement of, harvest and domestic trade controls. DFO records for
1999/2000-2003/2004 are provided in Table 2, with figures for the latter year more closely approaching
but still likely to significantly under-represent harvest and trade levels. Based on discussions with traders,
AMATYA (in litt. 2005) estimates that the total quantity of N. grandiflora collected from the Karnali (MidWestern Development Region) and Seti zones (Far Western Development Region) alone is around 200250 t per annum.
Table 2. National collection and sales figure in Nepal based on royalty (forest revenue) records
Jatamansi (Nardostachys grandiflora)
Fiscal years

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004

Quantity dry weight (kg)

83 59046 768

127 853

46 734208 464

Source: Dept. of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal.

The importance of medicinal plant harvest and trade to rural economies in Nepal has been stressed byseveral authors (e.g. see AMATYA & al. 1995, BHATTARAI 1999, OLSEN 1999, OLSEN & BHATTARAI 2005,
REGMI & al. 2000). OLSEN (1998) estimated that 470 000 households were involved in commercial medicinal plant collection in Nepal, AMATYA & al. (1995) estimated that nearly 90% of households in the Jumla
District harvested medicinal plants.
Noting the recent increase in studies of the Himalayan medicinal plant trade, OLSEN & BHATTARAI (2005)
have developed a typology for describing different actors in the trade, which they group according to threeoverall types: harvester, trader and wholesaler. These types are further broken down into “sub-types”, e.g.
harvesters who are either “collectors” versus “domesticators” and specific types, e.g. whether traders are
specialists or generalists. Their hope is that adoption of a common typology to describe the different actors in the trade will increase the ability to compile and compare information from different studies to provide a greater understanding of the trade as a whole.
The importance of medicinal plant harvest and trade appears to increase with altitude, reflecting both thelower agricultural productivity of high altitude regions, and also, it would seem, increased access to someof the higher value species, e.g. N. grandiflora. OLSEN (1995) found that in Gorkha only 15-20 out of 900
households (2%) were engaged in medicinal plant collection in the lowlands (Barpak). This percentage
increased with altitude to 100-50 out of 500 (25%) in Uhiya and Keraunja, 150-200 out of 500 (35%) in
Sidhibas, and up to nearly 100% in Chhekampar and Samagaon. Similar results were found for the
Chaudhabise area (Jumla), where harvesting of NTFPs, particularly N. grandiflora (said to make up 90%of the harvests) provided an income of NPR1000-3000 (USD14-42)/household/yr. This income was particularly significant considering that households spent NPR1200-8000 (USD16.8-112) on foodstuffs(AMATYA & al. 1995). According to REGMI & al. (2000), 47% of respondents to a survey on medicinal plant
harvests in Jumla said they collected them to earn money in their spare time, and 32% as a central part oftheir livelihood strategy. Fifty-one percent of respondents said that N. grandiflora was a preferred species
for income generation.
An analysis of the estimated distribution of income from medicinal plants harvested in the Dolpa region
was presented in HERTOG (1995) (Table 3).
Table 3. Income distribution from trade in
Nardostachys grandiflora from
Dolpa
Beneficiaries
Collector
Porter
Dolpa trader
Air freight
Nepalgunj trader
Total

Price
(NPR*/kg)% of total
20
4
28
18
42
112

18
4
25
16
37
100

* 1 NPR = 0.014 USD. Source: HERTOG (1995).

46

The average purchase price paid by regional wholesalers in India to middle level traders was estimated at
USD2.2/kg during 1997/98, the value of the harvest
during that year therefore estimated to be on the orderof USD400 000. The average value of rhizome sales
by harvesters was estimated to be USD29.9 duringthat year (OLSEN 2005a).
Further information on the structure and the economicsof the trade can be found in OLSEN (2005a & 2005b),
OLSEN & BHATTARAI (2005), and OLSEN & LARSEN(2003), among others.

Nardostachys grandiflora

During their 2001 survey of NTFP use in the Malekhukhola watershed, located in Dhading District of theCentral Development Region, PANDIT & THAPA (2004) found that there was keen competition for the collection of N. grandiflora, with collectors seeking to collect as much as possible of these high value plants,
which sold for NPR90/kg (USD1.29/kg) in the study area. These and other high value species are harvested before they are mature partly owing to concern that others will harvest them first, with entire plants
uprooted. GHIMIRE & al. (2005) similarly noted commercial harvesting of smaller, less mature plants in theirstudy of harvests and trade in the buffer zone around Phoksundo National Park (Dolpa District).
BHATTARAI (1999) noted that although they had been functional for a long period, traditional systems ofcollection and use could not serve as a model for future harvests, owing to increased threats from humanfactors including habitat destruction and overexploitation. A study of the effect of different harvesting practices in Jumla (REGMI & al. 2000) found that regeneration following harvest using traditional methods wasvery low (16.3%) compared to harvest in conjunction with replanting (upper parts of rhizomes replanted
after collection) and rotational harvesting systems (left untouched). The authors concluded that traditional
harvest methods were very detrimental to plant regeneration in a natural state (REGMI & al. 2000). LARSEN(2005) also examined regeneration rates in the Gorkha District, finding that harvesting 100% of the plants
in plots followed by replanting of upper plant parts and two centimetres of the rhizome provided the fastest
regeneration and rhizome biomass growth.
Rhizomes are dried and either traded whole, as powder or as essential oil. As the volatile oil cells are
generally located on the fine fibrous hairs of the rhizome, preparation of rhizome powder leads to ruptureof some of these oil glands and, consequently, a loss of oil. In commercial operations, the rhizomes areleft whole. They are graded and the oil distilled. Oil yields vary greatly from 0.57-1.67% of dry weight, butsome pilot tests have indicated that extractable volatile oil can be up to 2.9% of the rhizome dry weightafter a distillation period of 15 hours (AMATYA in litt. 2005). OLSEN (2005a) suggests an average oil content
of 1.5%. The quality and aroma of the essential oils are influenced by the growing conditions and altitudeof the harvest area, the maturity of the rhizomes at the time of harvest, the process of preparation and theduration of storage. The older the rhizomes, it is believed, the higher the percentage of essential oil inplants of up to two or three years (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Drying in the shade as opposed to the sun also
increases the quality (KAUL 2001).
The technology to produce essential oils was recently introduced in Nepal, which has led to increased
local production of and trade in “Jatamansi oil” (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Based on personal communications
with traders, AMATYA (in litt. 2005) estimated that of the approximately 200-250 t of N. grandiflora rhizomes
collected from the Seti and Karnali Zones, around 50-100 t was processed for the production of essential
oils, and the rest sold directly to traders.
In India, the main geographical areas of collection are Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh, in particularmoist, steep and rocky habitat at 3000 m altitude or more (RAWAT in litt. 2005). Harvest mainly takes placefrom April-May (RAWAT in litt. 2005). In the Garhwal Himalaya, rhizomes are preferably harvested during
their reproductive phase, after three to four years, when the content of the active ingredient is highest.
Production from a mature natural stand in that region has been esimated at 1760 kg/ha (NAUTIYAL &NAUTIYAL 2004). Harvesters both collect and dry the rhizomes (RAWAT in litt. 2005). RAI & al. (2000) estimated that 7.7 million N. grandiflora plants were collected annually from the wild in the Sikkim Himalaya.
Although the collection sites for these and other species are meant to be rotated to avoid repeated exploitation, this is not well enforced, owing to the remoteness of some areas, with significant illegal harvest as
a result. Collection is said to take place primarily in November and December.
Cultivation. Efforts to cultivate N. grandiflora in Nepal date back at least to the early 1990s, with AMATYA& STHAPIT (1994) noting that cultivation of the species in Nepal at that time was at the experimental stage,
based on propagation from seeds and cuttings of underground parts. Research on the potential for cultivation and regeneration of the species in community forests and private lands in the Jumla district of Nepal
achieved average germination rates of over 60%, with greater success achieved with the addition of organic fertilizers and at elevations above 2800 m (REGMI & al. 2000). Propagation protocols using tissue
culture were described by SAMANT & al. (1998).
N. grandiflora was ranked as one of the top species for development of cultivation for the ‘Cold Desert’zone of Himachal Pradesh in India, with priority activities to include selection of elite stock and seed planting and stock manipulation (ANON. 2002a). Cultivation trials undertaken in Uttaranchal (elevation 2200 m)
achieved nursery germination rates of 80%, of which 50-60% survived as seedlings. The estimated yieldfrom plants grown from seed was 831 kg/ha, while that from plants grown from rhizome cuttings was 1142
kg/ha, slightly over half the estimated yield from a mature natural stand (NAUTIYAL & NAUTIYAL 2004).
CHAUHAN & NAUTIYAL (2005) report on the results of cultivation trials carried out in the Garhwal Himalaya
at 1800 m, 2200 m and 3600 m, under a variety of conditions, and using both seedlings and vegetatively

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

47

propagated plants. Cultivation was found to be commercially viable at the higher altitudes, but not at analtitude of 1800 m.
National market. Nardostachys grandiflora was one of the 162 species for which a demand and supply
study was commissioned by the Department of Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy, the Government of India and the World Health Organization (WHO), New Delhi. India’s demand was estimated as
675 t during 2001-2002 and projected to be 867 t in 2004-2005, based on an annual projected growth of
8.7%. The price during 1999-2000 was reported to be INR150/kg (USD3.4/kg) (ANON. 2001-2002).
According to GUPTA (in litt. 2005) rhizomes are sold for INR115-125/kg (USD2.6-2.9/kg) in the main market for this species in Delhi, from which other markets are supplied. One well-known medium-size pharmacy in south India was said to have an annual demand of 2000 kg, which was purchased at the average
price of INR170-175/kg (USD3.9-4.0/kg) from Uttaranchal (RAMACHANDRAN in litt. 2005).
Most of the information available for Nepal focuses on harvest for export rather than domestic demand foruse in medicine and incense. Based on interviews with nine processors of N. grandiflora rhizomes for oil
production, OLSEN (2005a) estimated annual industrial demand for rhizomes to range from 10-246 t, withan estimated 201 t purchased in 1997/1998.
OLSEN (2005a) estimated that Nepal supplies 82±5 per cent of the total global (domestic and international)
trade in N. grandiflora rhizomes, followed by India (13±5%) and Bhutan (5±4%).
International trade. The main form of N. grandiflora in international trade is unprocessed rhizomes,
OLSEN (2005a) estimated that this involves a minimum of 100 t and a maximum of 500 t per year, withapproximately 300 t likely to have been traded in 1997/1998, and suggesting that semi-processed products such as oil and marc (the remains of the rhizomes after oil extraction) are traded in smaller amounts.
There is also likely to be at least a limited trade in finished products, e.g. incense and Ayurvedic medicines. Information on the quantities of N. grandiflora in international trade is limited, as much of the tradeis either unregulated or occurring outside of established trade controls, and therefore undocumented. Virtually no trade has been recorded in CITES annual reports, the one exception being China’s report of theexport of 12 500 kg of unprocessed rhyzomes to Nepal in 2001 (Table 4). No trade was reported during
2002 and 2003, with reported trade during 2004 limited to the trade in specimens used for training purposes.
Table 4. CITES-reported trade in Nardostachys grandiflora (1995-2003)
Year Country Country Originof Exof ImQuantity
port
port

ExportUnit

Term

Import
P

S

1997

CL

DE

??

1997

CL

DE

??

200

g

Dried plants E

U

1997

DE

CL

??

200

g

Derivatives

U

2000

DE

CH

NP

2001

CN

NP

E

Quantity Unit

Term

P S

200

Derivatives

E U

SpecimensW

2
12 500

kg

Roots

T

g

W

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

Nepal is the main source of N. grandiflora in international trade, exporting significant quantities of rhizomes, oil and marc. Based on discussions with traders in Nepal and India (see below), it appears that
China may be the second largest source of rhizomes (export from China to Nepal), followed by Bhutan(export from Bhutan to India).
OLSEN (1999) considered N. grandiflora to be one of the two most important medicinal plant species
traded from Nepal. Based on interviews with traders, OLSEN (2005a) estimated that exports of unprocessed air-dried rhizomes from Nepal to India could range from 100-435 t, with an estimate of 289 t in
1997/98. However, this figure could involve some re-export of rhizomes imported into Nepal from China.
As export of unprocessed rhizomes is banned under national legislation, there are no official government
export data for rhizome exports. Reported exports of “jatamansi marc” are recorded in Nepal’s Customs
export database. These totalled 148 t for 2000-2003 (Table 5). OLSEN (2005a) notes that marc is sold to
India and abroad by central wholesalers. It is unclear whether the Customs data for Nepal presented inTable 5 include exports to India, or only to overseas buyers.

48

Nardostachys grandiflora

Table 5.

Overseas export of "JatamansiMarc" from Nepal

Fiscal year
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
Total

Quantity (kg)
25 146100 350
22 270147 766

Source: Department of Customs, Nepal.

As noted above, there appears to be a growing trade from
Nepal of N. grandiflora oil, the vast majority of which is
destined for export to India. Nepali Customs data fromthree border posts showed the export of 3202 kg of oil to
India during 1996/1997. Nepal’s Customs export database also includes data on export to India of essential
oils, with specific data for Jatamansi provided for2000/2001 and 2001/2002 (Table 6), these exports totalling 21 t. It seems likely that some exports of Jatamansi
oil are also included in the categories for medicinal herboils.

The main export destination for oil is India, with smaller amounts exported to Europe and the USA (OLSEN
2005a).
Table 6. Reported export of essential oils from Nepal to India (1999/2000 - 2002/2003)
Fiscal year
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003

Quantity (kg)Description commodity
8 484 Medicinal herb oil
18 081 Jatamansi oil
2 914 Jatamansi oil
1 203 Medicinal herb oil

Quantity (kg)Description commodity
2 173 Essential oil
12 414 Essential oil
8 235 Essential oil
29 988 Essential oil

Source: Department of Customs, Nepal.

Table 7. Reported export of Nardostachys grandiflora oil from Nepal to overseas destinations(1998/1999-2002/2003; kg)
Fiscal year USA
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
Total

France
15
8
19
4
24
70

5
35
5
152
197

Germany Spain
UK
15
25
150

Japan

Switzerland

Taiwan

10
3
31

25
15

200

10

3

31

Total
70
161
102
187
34
176
102
558

Source: Nepal Overseas Trade Statistics, Trade Promotion Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal.

The reported export of Jatamansi oil from Nepal to overseas destinations totalled 558 kg from 1998-2003,
with EU countries identified as the main importers, particularly France and Spain (Table 7).
A significant quantity of N. grandiflora is said to be regularly imported into Nepal from Tibet, where the oil
is extracted. It is thought that the marc may possibly be mixed with unprocessed Nepalese plant materials
and exported to India (BHATTARAI in litt. 2000). These imports are apparently in response to the growing
demand for oil in Nepal in the face of declining supplies (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
All of the wholesalers in India interviewed by OLSEN (2005a) obtained at least 70% of N. grandiflora rhizomes from Nepal. India was cited as the second largest supplier, followed by Bhutan. Very little information is available regarding the export of N. grandiflora from India. It seems likely that at least limited tradein Ayurvedic medicines and other finished products takes place; these would appear to be allowed under
India’s current export controls. Of the rhizomes imported into India roughly 80% were believed to be processed and consumed locally (MULLIKEN 2000). OLSEN (1999) estimated that approximately 17% of
N. grandiflora imports from Nepal were subsequently re-exported from India.
As noted above, international trade in N. grandiflora rhizomes from China to Nepal has been reported bytraders in Nepal, with imports estimated at approximately 100 tons in 2001/2002, 80-90 tons in 2002/2003,
and 50-60 tons 2003/2004 (AMATYA in litt. 2005). CITES-reported trade is limited to the export of 12 500 kg
of rhizomes from China to Nepal in 2001, as was recorded in China’s CITES annual report data. Imports
are said to be in response to the growing demand for oil. Based on interviews with wholesalers in Indiaand supply and consumption estimates, OLSEN (2005a) estimated that exports of unprocessed air-dried
N. grandiflora rhizomes from Bhutan to India totalled somewhere between 3-35 t during 1997/98.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species49

In the USA N. grandiflora is readily available for purchase via the internet where US-based companies
market ‘Spikenard essential oil’. The average price is approximately USD70/kg. The source of oil offered
for sale is generally not identified, but Nepal has been given as the origin in some cases. There is no information to indicate quantities of oil traded to the USA (TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA in litt. 2005). As noted
above, there is a small but potentially growing trade in oil to countries in the European Union; there is alsoa small trade in rhizomes for medicinal use, with one company known to make a phytopharmaceutical
based on this species (LANGE & VAN DEN BERG-STEIN in litt. 2005).
Illegal harvest and trade. Significant differences between harvest and trade volumes recorded in Nepal’s District Forest Office records and the likely trade volumes based on interviews with harvesters andtraders indicate that illegal harvest of N. grandiflora is widespread in Nepal (OLSEN 2005a). Further evidence is provided by the large quantities of rhizomes exported to India in raw form despite an export ban
on unprocessed products. The lack of CITES trade data for exports from Nepal to China similarly indicatethat this trade is illegal; exports from Bhutan would similarly be illegal given that country’s ban on exports.
There have been several seizures of small quantities of Nardostachys grandiflora in India that were destined for export (Table 8).
Table 8. Seizures of Nardostachys grandiflora in India destined for export (2000-2003)
Date
03.10.00
25.01.01
05.03.01
12.01
31.07.01
10.06.03

Place
CFS, Patparganj New Delhi
CochinSea Docks Mumbai
JNPT New Mumbai
FPO New Delhi
FPO New Delhi

Destination
Australia
Switzerland
Yemen
Czech Republic
USA
FinlandCommodity
Oil
Medicines
RhizomePowderOil

Quantity
2 kg
20 kg
20 kg
300 g
1 bottle

Source: CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2001, 2002, 2004.

Legislation and regulations
Regulation of harvest, manufacturing and domestic trade. The main laws governing harvesting of
medicinal plants in India are the Indian Forest Act (1927), and, to a lesser extent, the Wildlife (Protection)
Act (1927/1991/2002). The Indian Forest Act (1927) consolidates the law relating to forest produce, thetransit thereof and duty thereon, and empowers State Governments to regulate the transit of forest produce, e.g. medicinal plants. The Act deals specifically with reserved, protected, and village forests. Almost
all the States and Union Territories in India have regulations regarding harvest, transit and trade in medicinal plants. Most have established lists of species banned from harvest from forests (“Negative lists”),
which include threatened plants (Jain 2000).
The Indian Forest Act (1927) has been adopted by most of the States and is directly applicable to the Union Territories of India. The remaining States have enacted State Forest Acts of their own, which arelargely based on the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Acts of the States have been amended from time totime as required. The States have framed Rules under the Acts to protect and preserve the forest wealthof their respective States (JAIN 2000). The Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules
1977 were amended in 1994 and now lay down the “pass/export permit fee” for specified medicinal plants.
The trade in some of the important and threatened medicinal plants of the State has been restricted orbanned. See JAIN (2000) for a state-by-state analysis of legislation relevant to the harvest and trade of
medicinal plants in general.
Wildlife harvest and domestic trade controls are implemented in Nepal’s national parks, conservation
areas and protected areas via the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973); elsewhere in the
country, implementation is via the Forest Act (1993) and the accompanying Forest Regulation (1995)(AMATYA in litt. 2005, ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000, SHRESTHA in litt. 2000). A summary of these andrelated controls for medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products has been compiled by the Asia
Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) and can be found on their website(BINAYEE undated).
The Forest Act and Regulation stipulate rules governing the collection of forest products. Collection is
authorized via licences issued by District Forest Officers (DFO). Licences are required to specify the collection area; the period in which harvest is to take place; the species and quantities to be collected; andmethod of harvest (AMATYA in litt. 2005, OLSEN in litt. 2000). Licence applicants are required to provide thisinformation and specify the purpose of collection. In accordance with the Regulation, District Forest Officers are required to verify the quantity of medicinal plants collected, collect any associated fees, and issue50

Nardostachys grandiflora

a “release order”, which is required to transport harvested plants out of the district of origin. The releaseorder should state: the species and quantity transported; the destination; and the period in which transportation must take place (ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). There is also a provision to allow harvest andtrade licences to be sold at auction (ARYAL 2000).
In their 2001 study in the Dhading District, PANDIT & THAPA (2004) found that implementation of these licensing provisions was low in government forests, reflecting a combination of a lack of resource management rights among the local population and low government enforcement capacity. Inspection of harvested materials to ensure compliance with licence provisions was considered to be low. Adherence tolicence provisions was similarly found to be low in community forests, where permitting provisions still
applied, but harvest rights were restricted to members of forest user groups. Others have similarly noted
low levels of implementation of national harvest and trade controls for medicinal plants and other NTFPs(e.g. see MULLIKEN 2000, OLSEN 2005a).
Protection of flora and fauna in Bhutan is provided for under the Forest and Nature Conservation Act.
Collection of N. grandiflora from the wild is allowed under this Act, and transport within Bhutan controlled
under a system of permits through a related regulation. According to a regulation issued by the Royal
Government Forestry Service Division, it is necessary for regional forestry divisions to submit a quarterly
report of extraction of all forest products to the central headquarters. The reports are based on the quantities stated on permits.
Regulation of international trade
CITES listing: Nardostachys grandiflora was first proposed for inclusion in CITES Appendix II in 1989
(CITES CoP 7, Lausanne), with a proposal submitted by India. However, this proposal was withdrawn, as
the information available was considered insufficient to judge the merits of the listing. India proposed thespecies for inclusion in Appendix II again at CITES CoP 9 (Fort Lauderdale, November 1994) the proposal
was once again withdrawn, and instead referred to the CITES Plants Committee (ANON. 1997). A successful listing proposal was put forward by India to CITES CoP 10 (Harare, June 1997), which became effective 18 September 1997. The listing was annotated to include only “whole and sliced roots and parts ofroots, excluding manufactured parts or derivatives such as powders, pills, extracts, tonics, teas and confectionery“ (Annotation #3). The annotation was modified at CITES CoP 14 (The Hague, June 2007), aspart of a Plants Committee process to clarify and harmonise annotations for medicinal plants. The revisedannotation "Designates all parts and derivatives except: a) seeds and pollen; and b) finished products
packaged and ready for retail trade”, and is in effect as of 13 September 2007.
It is important to note that while the earlier annotation of the CITES listing for N. grandiflora referred to“roots”, the main parts of the plants in trade are not actually roots but rather rhizomes (i.e. undergroundstems). The latter term is used in the CITES Guide to Plants in Trade (MATHEW 1994) and the Checklist of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and Their Trade Names Covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97(LANGE & SCHIPPMANN 1999). Texts referring to the medicinal properties of these species (e.g. ANON.
1993, JAIN 1994, KEYS 1976, YANG 1996) use both “root” and “rhizome” to refer to the plant parts in trade.
It seems unlikely that the lack of CITES trade data for this species reflects a conscious decision not to
implement trade controls for rhizomes, however there is nevertheless the potential confusion on this pointby government staff charged with implementing CITES trade controls.
CITES is implemented in India through a combination of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972/1991/2002 andthe Export and Import Policy (EXIM) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 andthe Customs Act, 1962. The Wildlife (Protection) Act prohibits export of a number of species, including all
six CITES Appendix I plant species native to India, of which one, Kuth Saussurea lappa, is a medicinal
plant.
Policy on trade in wildlife and wildlife products is established via the EXIM policy, which is revised periodically. The policy, as far as it concerns wildlife, is decided in consultation with the Director of Wildlife Preservation of the Government of India, who is the CITES Management Authority and oversees CITES implementation in the country. The Director has four Regional Deputy Directors and four sub-regional officesof wildlife preservation, these serving as assistant CITES Management Authorities. The EXIM policy is put
into effect via the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 and enforced
via the Customs Act (CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA in litt. 2004).
The EXIM policy was embedded within a broader Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004–2009, thischange coming into effect on 1 September 2004. The Foreign Trade Policy aims at doubling India’s sharein global trade and expanding employment opportunities, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, andincludes a Special Agricultural Produce Scheme, promoting the export of, inter alia, minor forest produce
such as medicinal plants and their value-added products. The policy outlines that all export and import

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

51

shall be “free”, i.e. unrestricted, unless regulated under any legislation. Goods imported in accordancewith this policy may be exported in the same form without a licence, provided that there is no import orexport restriction for the items. Even goods restricted for import may be imported under Customs Bond forexport without a licence provided that the items are freely exportable. Specific note is made in the policythat this does not preclude the application of other laws (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2004).
Import and export restrictions for specific products are established via India’s ITC (HS) classifications inaccordance with the broader policy. Several categories relevant to CITES-listed species have been identified as goods allowed to be imported without restriction (i.e. free of import duties or quotas), e.g. “medicinal plants, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered” (Schedule 1 Chapter 12), lac, gums,
resins and other vegetable extracts (Schedule 1, Chapter 13), pharmaceutical products (Schedule 1,
Chapter 30) and essential oils (Schedule 1, Chapter 33). Although instructions under the EXIM policy for
1997-2002 stipulated that imports of plants, products and derivatives were subject to CITES provisions(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), the low levels of trade data for imports of CITES-listed species into India indicatethat these provisions were not implemented effectively.
It does not appear that any CITES-related import controls were established via the policy for 2004-2009
until early 2006, nor that these existed under other legislation (with the exception of Saussurea lappa),
with the effect that imports of CITES-listed medicinal plant species was uncontrolled. However, on
6 February 2006 the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items were amended such that importsof Rauvolfia spp. (all species) are to be subject to CITES provisions (Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce Notification No. 42 RE-2005/2004-09). Similar amendments were made for
Kuth (Saussurea lappa) roots, cacti, agarwood and agar oil. This would seem to indicate that CITES tradecontrols are not required for imports of other CITES-listed plant species, including Nardostachys grandiflora, however confirmation of this is required.
As stipulated in Chapter 12 of the ITC (HS) classifications, the export of plants, plant portions, their derivatives and extracts of species included in CITES Appendix I and II obtained from the wild is generally prohibited. Further clarification is required to confirm whether this applies to wild specimens regardless of
their country of origin, or to only those specimens obtained within India. An “Export Licensing Note” appended to Chapter 12 specifies 29 plant taxa for which export is generally prohibited. This list includes
Nardostachys grandiflora. An exception for both CITES species and those listed in the Licensing Note ismade for the export of “formulations”, defined as including “products which may contain portions/extractsof plants on the prohibited list but only in unrecognizable and physically inseparable form” and “value
added formulations as well as herbal Ayurvedic” (Chapter 12, Export Licensing Note 3). It is not clear
whether the term “recognizable” is defined per the CITES interpretation of “readily recognizable” such that
if the ingredients of a particular formulation of Ayurvedic medicine are listed on the packaging, then they
are considered to be “recognizable”. The instructions include a note that states that “no certificate fromany authorities whatsoever shall be required for their [formulations] export,” implying that no CITES permits would be required for such exports. Export Licensing Note 2 states that export permits are required,however it is not clear if this applies only to cultivated specimens, which are allowed to be exported (seebelow) or also to formulations. CITES Management Authority staff have advised that, if Customs staff refera shipment of “formulations” containing CITES-listed species to the Management Authority for clearance,then issuance of a CITES export permit will be required (AARTI in litt. 2005).
A further exception is provided for exports of wild CITES-listed species on a case-by-case basis for “lifesaving drugs”, which could presumably be applied to any medicinal species. However, in this case a
CITES permit would be required, with such trade only allowed on recommendation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Exports of plants produced via cultivation are allowed subject to obtaining a transit pass from the relevant
Divisional Forest Officer if the plants were cultivated in sites within forests, or a Certificate of Cultivationfrom a District Agriculture, Horticulture or Forest Officer if cultivated at sites outside forests. Export Licensing Note 2 included in this schedule states that “However, in respect of CITES species, a CITES permit ofexport shall be required”. As noted above, it appears that this provision relates to all but formulations,however this requires further clarification.
It does not appear that export restrictions on wild specimens of CITES-listed species apply to imported
specimens, however this requires confirmation, nor does it appear that there are any specific provisions
made for controlling re-exports of CITES-listed species, other than as may be required to prove that reexports do not involve wild-collected stock from within India. No reference could be found to an earlier(2003) provision requiring exporters of value-added formulations made out of imported species from thelist of “prohibited plants” to provide an affidavit to Customs authorities at the time of export that the specimens were legally imported (NTF NO. 03/2003 31/03/2003). However, CITES Management Authority staff
state that proof of import is required prior to granting re-export permission, and that they take into account,52

Nardostachys grandiflora

for example, the amount of unprocessed product that would have been required on import to produce agiven export quantity (JAIN in litt. 2005). CITES Re-export Certificates are issued for such shipments(AARTI in litt. 2005).
Exports are required to be limited to the following ports: Mumbai, Nhava Sheva, Kolkata, Cochin, Delhi,
Chennai, Tuticorin, Amritsar, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
2004). It is not clear if this relates to all plants covered under this Customs classification, or only to CITESlisted species and other medicinal species for which export is prohibited.
All violations of the EXIM policy constitute an offence under the Customs Act and are dealt with by Customs officials, who alone have the responsibility to enforce compliance with CITES at border posts. Inspection of consignments by Wildlife Inspectors, co-operating with Customs staff, may also be carried out
at border crossings, but such specialist investigations are few. Enforcement of any violations detected is
the responsibility of the Customs authorities (PANDA in litt. 1998).
There is no specific CITES-implementing legislation in Nepal, however legislation to promote more effective CITES implementation has been under consideration since the late 1990s. If agreed, the Rare (Endangered) Wildlife and Plants Trade Control Act, 2057 (2002) would provide a more powerful legal tool for
CITES implementation within Nepal, and includes a number of CITES-relevant provisions (HEINEN &CHAPAGAIN 2002).
Nepal’s CITES Management Authority for plants is the Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation. The CITES Scientific Authority for plants is the Department of Plant Resources, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation. The Management Authority issues export permits for plants covered by
CITES and/or the Forest Act that are in a processed or semi-processed form (BISTA in litt. 2000).
Export of Nardostachys grandiflora from Nepal was banned in 1995 via publication of a notification in the
Nepal Gazette (under rule 12 and 13 (2) of the Forest Regulation, 1995) on 3 April 1995. This wasamended in 2001 to allow export in processed form, as long as processing takes place within Nepal andpermission is obtained from the Department of Forests, advised by the Department of Plant Resourcesand Herb Production and Processing Co. Ltd. (per Clause 2 of Nepal Gazette vol. 3, Section 51 No. 36,
dated December 31, 2001 issued by Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation) (AMATYA in litt. 2005). According to PANDIT & THAPA (2004), the ban on export of raw materials of certain medicinal species has
been misinterpreted by some District Forest Office staff as relating to trade from one District to another,rather than to export from Nepal, increasing the incentive for illegal trade by village collectors.
The Management Authority also maintains liaison with the Department of Customs, Intelligence, Policeand other agencies. However, it was noted in 2000 that Customs officers had not been trained in the identification of medicinal plants (BISTA in litt. 2000); it is unknown if training has been provided since that time.
Personnel from the Department of Forests and District Forest Offices have been posted at the Customs
points in the Terai to examine consignments containing wild flora (ARYAL 2000).
Treaty of Trade between Nepal and India
In an effort to expand trade between their two countries, the Governments of India and Nepal entered intoa bilateral trade agreement in 1991. The treaty provides for preferential treatment (exemption from Customs duty and quantitative restrictions) of trade of certain “primary products”, which include forest producethat has not undergone processing, and Ayurvedic and herbal medicines (Article IV) (ANON. 2002b). Under
this treaty, a certificate of origin issued by the Government of Nepal is the only document required forpresentation to India’s Customs authorities at the time of import (MULLIKEN 2000). Trade in conjunction
with the treaty is required to take place via one of the 22 border crossings designated in Annex A of thetreaty. During the late 1990s, border officials were unaware that CITES documentation might also be required for export (as noted above, under India’s current CITES implementing legislation and the EXIM
Policy, CITES export permits would not be required to accompany shipments into India in any event). The
treaty contains provisions for stronger domestic measures on the part of national governments, and provides a list of articles not allowed preferential treatment (e.g. cigarettes and alcohol) as an annex. It appears that this Annex could be amended to reflect CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
TRAFFIC India informed Government authorities in both India and Nepal of the apparent relevance of thistreaty with respect to CITES trade controls. Initial research results from this study were communicated tothe second Indo-Nepal Trans-border Meeting in February 1999. As a result, the final resolution of thatmeeting called for bringing the bilateral treaty in line with CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
The treaty was extended for a further five years in 2002 and remained in effect until 5 March 2007 (ANON.
2002b). Although some amendments were made, these did not reflect the concerns raised regarding

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

53

CITES implementation (AMATYA in litt. 2005). The treaty has been extended for a further five years, andwill remain in effect until 5 March 2012.
At present, there is no law formulated specifically to implement CITES within China, however, a series ofregulations implementing CITES, the Import and Export Regulations of Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora,came into effect on 1 September 2006. China’s Law of Wild Plant Protection took effect 1 January 1997.
Under this law, protected plant species are classified into those of “national key significance” and those of“local key significance”. Protected plant species of national key significance are further divided into Category I and Category II-protected species. Trade in Category I-protected species is not allowed. Trade inplant species listed as Category II is subject to authorization by the relevant government agencies at theprovincial/autonomous region level. The State Forestry Administration, the Ministry of Agriculture andother authorized governmental authorities at the provincial/autonomous region level are responsible for
enforcing the Law of Wild Plant Protection. A list of 255 species is appended to this law. From 1 January
1998, China’s regulatory system for the export of wild animals and plants was strengthened by the Endangered Species Import and Export Management Office (under the State Forest Administration), thedesignated CITES Management Authority, and the Customs Authority. A wide range of animals and plants
with their corresponding Harmonized System Customs codes are specified in an annex attached to a Joint
Notification from the Management Authority and the Customs Authority. The list is said to be compiled on
the basis of the CITES Appendices and the lists of key national protected animals and plants. The Notification was amended in February 1999 to include Nardostachys grandiflora. The Notification has been
circulated among the officers of the Management Authority and Customs across the country and was copied to various other governmental agencies. Trade in live animals or plants, parts in their raw form, andproducts made from those animals and plants specified on the said list are controlled. According to the
Notification, where applicable, import/export permits or certificates are required.
Exports of most medicinal plants, including N. grandiflora, from Bhutan are banned (MULLIKEN 2000).

Conclusions
There is a rapidly growing body of information concerning the harvest and trade of N. grandiflora, particularly within Nepal, and to a lesser extent, in India, with detailed studies of regeneration rates having been
undertaken at some sites. Available evidence supports earlier conclusions that the species is declining inparts of its range, to the point that many consider it to be threatened. There is no indication that demand,and therefore harvest to meet it, will decline in the foreseeable future.
Demand for N. grandiflora within India remains strong and is met largely by imports of rhizomes from Nepal (illegal according to Nepal’s export controls), followed by harvest of rhizomes within India, and then byimports from Bhutan (illegal according to Bhutan’s export controls). Nepal’s domestic processing of rhizomes to produce essential oil is increasing, reflecting the government ban on exports of unprocessedrhizomes and increased access to distillation technology.
The history and similarity in the scientific and common names of N. grandilfora (Jatamansi) and Valeriana
jatamansi (Indian Valerian) and in their usage are contributing to the lack of clarity regarding the distribution of N. grandiflora, particularly within Pakistan. In addition, it seems likely that a lack of knowledge ofthe difference between these and several other species, e.g. Selinum spp., could undermine efforts toenforce national and/or international trade controls, as well as lower product quality as a result of adulteration.
Although local and national harvest and trade controls for N. grandiflora appear to be comprehensive on
paper in India and Nepal, implementation and enforcement of these controls appear to be minimal for thisspecies. CITES implementation seems to be virtually non-existent, as reflected by the ongoing trade inrhizomes from Nepal and Bhutan to India without accompanying CITES documentation or reporting in
CITES annual reports.
It is now more than 15 years since India first sought assistance with controlling the international trade in
N. grandiflora through a CITES listing, and nine years since that listing took effect. More than five years
have passed since a CITES Secretariat-funded study documented problems associated with the trade andimplementation of trade controls was presented to the CITES Plants Committee and subsequently published. Although a great deal more research on the species has been published since that study, the situation with regard to harvest management and trade controls remains largely unchanged.
Given the strong and persistent demand for N. grandiflora, evidence of declines in parts of its range, andthe importance of harvest and trade to rural livelihoods, greater attention should be paid to developing andpromoting sustainable harvest methods. Implementation of these methods should be supported by a policy framework that provides incentives for sustainable management and trade within established controls,
including CITES. As noted by OLSEN (2005b), concerted action to reduce harvests or trade in one country54Nardostachys grandiflora

may simply shift harvest pressure to neighbouring countries, and therefore fail to achieve wider conservation objectives. A regional approach to managing this regional resource would be preferable, involving a
range of stakeholders from both range States and consumer countries.

Possible next steps
Range States for Nardostachys grandiflora might consider:•

Co-convening a regional multi-stakeholder workshop to facilitate sharing of information and experiences, and facilitate development of a regional strategy for sustainable management of Nardostachys
grandiflora and other Himalayan medicinal plant species;•

Pursuing a programme of collaborative research and action to:
Determine the distribution and status of these species, including confirmation of rates and causes ofdecline and regeneration;
Determine the source and quantity of specimens in domestic and international trade;
Identify and develop sustainable harvest practices;
Review and clarify domestic harvest and trade controls and export policies for N. grandiflora, and identify appropriate and mutually reinforcing responses with regard to harvest and trade control problems
identified; andDevelop and distribute local language and visual educational materials to support the implementationof sustainable harvest practices.

The Government of China might consider:•

Expanding national legislation to address harvest and trade of N. grandiflora.

The Government of India might consider:•Reviewing and revising existing legislation to include CITES-related controls on imports, and, if notalready in place, re-exports of N. grandiflora and all other CITES-listed plant species.

The Government of Nepal might consider:•

Establishing a process to review and improve the structure and implementation of current nationallevel legislation for the harvest and trade of N. grandiflora and other alpine species.

The Governments of both India and Nepal might consider:•

Modifying the Treaty of Trade between Nepal and India in order to reflect CITES requirements.

References
AARTI, Ms. CITES Enforcement Inspector, CITES Management Authority of India (2005): pers. comm. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (16.05.05).
AKHTER, R., National Herbarium of Pakistan (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
ALI S., K.A. ANSARI, M.A. JAFRY, H. KABEER & G. DIWAKAR (2000): Nardostachys jatamansi protects against
liver damage induced by thioacetamide in rats. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 71(3):359-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10940571&d
opt=Abstract (Viewed 01.2006).
AMATYA, G., Project Manager, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and NTFPs Project, IUCN Nepal (2005): inlitt. to TRAFFIC International.
AMATYA, K. R (2000): Utilisation of Himalayan medicinal Plant Resources: Status, Problems, and Prospects. In: Proceedings of Nepal–Japan Joint Symposium on conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, Nov. 6-11.11.2000, pp. 331-352, Non-profit Organisation (NPO)/ Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR), Japan 2002.
AMATYA, K.R., P.R. SHAKYA, P. BAJRACHARYA, B.R. CHITRAKAR & P.M. TULADHAR (1995): A Study Report on
the Policy and Institutional Support for Sustainable Utilisation of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants in

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

55Nepal Himalaya. Report submitted to International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development(ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal. [reference cited in AMATYA in litt. 2005]
AMATYA, G. & V. STHAPIT (1994): A Note on Nardostachys jatamansi. Journal of Herbs, Spices & Medicinal
Plants 2(2): 39-47.
ANON. (1970): Medicinal Plants of Nepal. pp.54-55, Bulletin of the Department of Medicinal Plants No. 3.
Department of Medicinal Plants, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal.
ANON. (1982): Markets for Selected Medicinal Plants and their Derivatives. International Trade Centre
UNCTAD/GATT, Geneva, Switzerland.
ANON. (1993). Medicinal Plants of Nepal. Bulletin of the Department of Medicinal Plants No. 3. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Medicinal
Plants, Thapathali, Kathmandu, Nepal. Fourth edition.
ANON. (1995). The Pharmacopoeia of People’s Republic of China, 1995 Edition. Guangdong ScientificTechnology Press, Guangzhou, China.
ANON. (1996): Final Report on Use of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants in SWC Programmes. Prepared byGhosh and Rao Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
ANON. (1997): IUCN Analyses of Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices. Prepared by IUCN Species
Survival Commission and the TRAFFIC Network for the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of theParties to CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
ANON. (2001-2002): Demand Study for Selected Medicinal Plants. Vol. 1. Centre for Research, Planningand Action, New Delhi, India. [reference cited in JAIN in litt. 2005]
ANON. (2002a): Proceedings. International Workshop Endangered Medicinal Plant Species in Himachal
Pradesh. 18-19 March 2002. Organised by G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment & Development.
ANON. (2002b): Treaty of trade between his Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India.
http://www.tpcnepal.org.np/tagree/treatyoftradeind.htm.
ANON. (2003): A Checklist of the Trees, Shrubs, Herbs, and Climbers of Myanmar. Contributions from theUnited States National Herbarium. Volume 45: 1-590. U.S. National Herbarium, the Forest Department of Myanmar, and the University of Yangon. http://persoon.si.edu/myanmar/index.cfm
ANON. (undated): Publication of the medicinal plants. Jatamansi. National Medicinal Plants Board, Ministryof Health and Family Welfare, Department of AYUSH, Government of India. http://nmpb.nic.in/jatamansi.htm (Viewed 01.03.2005).
ARORA, R.B. (1965): Cardiovascular pharmacotherapeutics of six medicinal plants indigenous to Pakistan
and India. In: Hamdard Pharmacopoeia of Eastern Medicine, Hamdard Foundation Pakistan(1969) 422-448 pp. [reference cited in SAEED 1997]
ARYAL, R.S. (2000): Legislative framework and the protection of Medicinal Plants in Nepal. In:
WATANABE,T., A. TAKANO, M.S. BISTA, & H.K. SAIJU (eds): Proceeding of Nepal-Japan Joint Symposium on conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, 6-11 November 2000,
pp. 27-32, Non-profit Organisation (NPO)/Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR), Japan 2002.
BHATTARAI, N.K. (1999): Medicinal Plants and the Plant Research Division of Nepal. Medicinal Plant Conservation 5:7-8.
BHATTARAI, N.K. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (12.02.2000).
BHATTARAI, N.K., Advisor and Consultant, Medicinal & Aromatic Plants Programme in Asia (MAPPA),
Kathmandu, Nepal (2005): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (20.01.2005).
BHATTARAI, N., M. KHARKI & V. TANDON (2002): Report of the CAMP workshop in Nepal. Medicinal Plant
Conservation 8: 28-30.
BINAYEE, S.B. (undated): Government Regulations in NTFPs Trade. ANSAB. http://www.ansab.org/News_
Fol/government_regulation.htm (Viewed 24.04.2005).
BISTA, M.S. (2000): in litt. to the CITES Secretariat (23.02.2000).

56

Nardostachys grandiflora

BURBAGE, M.B. (1981): Report on a Visit to Nepal: the Medicinal Plant Trade in the Khardep area - a Studyof the Development Potential. Tropical Products Institute, London, UK. [reference cited in ANON.
1997]
CECI (1997): Inventory of Four High Value Non-Timber Forest Products in Jumla (Nardostachys grandiflora, Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora, Rheum australe and Valeriana jatamansii). - 17pp. CanadianCentre for International Studies and Co-operation (CECI) Kathmandu, Nepal.
CHAUHAN, N.S. (1999): Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of Himachal Pradesh. pp. 190-194, Indus Publishing Company, New Delhi, India.
CHAUHAN, R.S. & M.C. NAUTIYAL (2005): Commercial viability of cultivation of an endangered medicinal
herb Nardostachys jatamansi at three different agroclimatic zones. Current Science 89(9): 14811488.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2001): CITES Annual Report 2000. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2002): CITES Annual Report 2001. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004). CITES Annual Report 2003. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant.
DHARMANANDA, S. (undated): Valerian and Nardostachys. Institutehttp://www.itmonline.org/arts/valerian.htm (Viewed 24.06.06).

forTraditional

Medicine.

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (2004): Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. Ministry of Commerce& Industry, Government of India, New Delhi, India. http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/ (Viewed 16.01.2005).
DUTTA, R. & P. JAIN (2000). CITES Listed Medicinal Plants of India – An Identification Manual. TRAFFIC
India and WWF India, Delhi, India.
EDWARDS, D.M. (1993): The marketing of non-timber forest products from the Himalayas: The trade between east Nepal and India. Network Paper 15b. Rural Development Forestry Network, Kathmandu, Nepal.
FU, W. (1993): History of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Bashu Publications, Sichuan, China.
GHIMIRE, S.K., D. MCKEY & Y. AUMEERUDDY-THOMAS (2005). Conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants:
harvesting patterns and ecology of two threatened species, Nardostachys grandiflora DC. andNeopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennell) Hong. Biological Conservation 124: 463-475.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1997). Proposal to include Nardostachys grandiflora in CITES Appendix II.
GRIEVE, M. (1931): A Modern Herbal. Penguin Books, London, UK.
GUPTA, O.P., Partner Om Prakash Vijay Kumar (Whole Sale trader), Delhi (2005): pers. comm. to P. Jain,
Medicinal Plant Consultant, TRAFFIC International (16.01.2005).
HEINEN, J. & D.P. CHAPAGAIN (2002): On the expansion of species protection in Nepal: Advances and pitfalls of new efforts to implement and comply with CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy 5: 235-250.
HERTOG, D. (1995): Hidden values: Non Timber Forest Products in Dolpa district; Karnali Local Development Programme, Netherlands Development Organisation [SNV-Nepal]. [reference cited in
AMATYA, K. R (2000)]IUCN PAKISTAN (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
JAIN, A.K. (2000): Regulation of Collection, Transit and Trade of Medicinal Plants and other Non-Timber
Forest Produce in India – A compendium. xxix +529. TRAFFIC-India/WWF India, New Delhi, India.
JAIN, P., Medicinal Plant Consultant India (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International
JAIN, S.K. (1994): Medicinal Plants. Fifth Edition. National Book Trust, New Delhi, India.
KAHN, B.A. (2005): in litt. to IUCN Pakistan (03.2005).
KALA, C.P. (1997): in litt. to German CITES Scientific Authority, Bonn, Germany.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

57

KAUL, M.K. (2001): Technical Report on Establishment of Gene Bank of Medicinal plants of N.W.Himalaya– Department of Biotechnology, Government of India Project at RRL Jammu, India.
KAZMI, M.A. & I.A. SIDDIQUI (1953): Medicinal plants of Astore and Upper Guraiz Valleys. Pakistan Journalof Forestry 3(4):186-212.
KEYS, J.D. (1976): Chinese Herbs: Their Botany, Chemistry and Pharmacodynamics. Charles E. Tuttle
Company Rutland and Tokyo.
KHAN, A.H. & S.H. ZAIDI (1989): Propagation and Regeneration Technology of Pharmacopeial Medicinal
Plants of the Temperate Regions of Pakistan. Bulletin No. 8. Biological Sciences Research Division, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan.
KIHARA, H. (1955): Fauna and Flora of Nepal Himalaya. pp. 235-236, Scientific Result of the JapaneseExpeditions to Nepal Himalayas, 1952-53. Fauna and Flora Research Society, Kyoto University,
Kyoto, Japan.
KITAMURA, S. (1954): New species from Nepal collected by Sasuke Nakao, a member of the Himalayan
Expedition III. Acta Phytotax. et Geobot. 15: 129-134.
LANGE, D. & S. VAN DEN BERG-STEIN (2005). In litt. to TRAFFIC International.
LANGE, D. & U. SCHIPPMANN (Comps.) (1999): Checklist of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and their Trade
Names Covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97, vers. 3.0. Bundesamt für Naturschutz(BfN)/German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany.
LARSEN, H.O. (2002): Commercial Medicinal Plant Extraction in the Hills of Nepal: Local Management
System and Ecological Sustainability. Environmental Management 29(1): 88-101.
LARSEN, H.O. (2005): Impact of replanting on regeneration of the medicinal plant Nardostachys grandiflora
DC. (Valerianaceae). Economic Botany 59(3): 213-220.
MATHEW, M. (ed.) (1994): CITES Guide to Plants in Trade. Department of Environment, UK.
MULLIKEN, T.A. (2000): Implementing CITES for Himalayan Medicinal Plants Nardostachys grandiflora andPicrorhiza kurrooa. In: TRAFFIC Bulletin 18: 63-72.
NASIR, Y. (1976): Flora of Pakistan No. 101. Valerianaceae. University of Karachi University, Karachi,
Pakistan.
NAUTIYAL, M.C. (1994): Cultivation of medicinal plants and biosphere reserve management in alpine zone.
In: RAMAKRISHNA, P.S., PUROHIT, A.N., SAXENA, K.G., RAO, K.S. AND MAIKHURI, R.K. (Eds.) (1996).
Conservation and Management of Biological Resources in Himalaya. GBPIHED and Oxford &IBH, New Delhi, India. pp. 570-582. [reference cited in CHAUHAN & NAUTIYAL 2005].
NAUTIYAL, B.P., R.S. CHAUHAN, V. PRAKASH, H. PUROHIT & M.C. NAUTIYAL (2003): Population studies for theevaluation of germplasm and threat status of the alpine medicinal herb, Nardostachys jatamansi.
PGR Newsletter 136:34-39.
NAUTIYAL M.C. & B.P. NAUTIYAL (2004): Agrotechniques for High Altitude Medicinal and Aromatic Plants.
99-133 pp. High Altitude Plant Physiology Research Centre, Srinagar, Uttaranchal & Bishen Singh
Mahenra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, Uttaranchal, India. [reference cited in JAIN in litt. 2005]
OLSEN, C.S. (1995): Medicinal Plants in Gorkha District. Presented at Seminar on Medicinal Plants in
Gorkha District, HMG, District Forest Office, Gorkha. [reference cited in AMATYA & al. 1995]
OLSEN, C.S. (1998): The trade in medicinal plants from Nepal: status and possible improvements. Themepaper presented at the International Conference on Medicinal Plants, Bangalore, India, 16-19
February, 1998. 12pp. [reference cited in OLSEN 1999]
OLSEN, C.S. (1999): CITES Appendix II re-visited: Is the listing of Nardostachys grandiflora and Picrorhiza
kurrooa appropriate? Medicinal Plant Conservation 5: 8-10.
OLSEN, C.S. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (22.02.2000).
OLSEN, C.S. (2005a): Trade and conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants: Nardostachys grandiflora
DC. and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennel) Hong. Biological Conservation 125(4): 505-514.
OLSEN, C.S. (2005b): Valuation of commercial central Himalayan medicinal plants. Ambio 39 (8): 607-610.
OLSEN, C.A. & N. BHATTARAI (2005): A typology of economic agents in the Himalayan plant trade. Mountain Research and Development Volume 25(1): 37-43.

58

Nardostachys grandiflora

OLSEN, C.A. & F. HELLES (1997): Medicinal plants, markets and margins in the Nepal Himalaya: Trouble in
Paradise. Mountain Research and Development 17: 363-374. [reference cited in OLSEN 2005a]
OLSEN, C.S. & H.O. LARSEN (2003): Alpine medicinal plant trade and Himalayan mountain livelihood
strategies. The Geographical Journal 169(3):243-254.
OLSEN, C.S., H.O. LARSEN, & N.K. BHATTARAI (2002): Database on Commercial Medicinal Plant Literaturefrom Nepal. Department of Economics and Natural Resources, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University,Copenhagen, Denmark.
PANDA, S. (1998): in litt. to TRAFFIC India (09.11.1998).
PANDIT, B.H. & G.B. THAPA (2004): A tragedy of non-timber forest resources in the mountain commons of
Nepal. Environment and Conservation 30: 283-292.
PRAKASH, V. & B.N. MEHROTRA (1989): On the identity and nomenclature of the Indian drug Jatamansi(Nardostachys sp.). Ethnobotany 1: 67-76.
RAI, L.K., P. PRASAD & E. SHARMA (2000): Conservation threats to some important medicinal plants of the
Sikkim Himalaya. Biological Conservation 92(2000): 27-33.
RAMACHANDRAN, K.V., Senior Manager (Materials), Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal, India (2005): in litt. to P.
Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (10.01.2005).
RAO, R.R. (1997): in litt. to Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.
RAWAT, G.S., Head, Habitat Ecology Department, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India (2005): in litt.
to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (10.01.2005).
REGMI, S., S. BISTA, & M. CASEY (2000): Conservation and Sustainable use of High Value Medicinal andAromatic Plants in Jumla District of Nepal. In: Proceeding of Nepal-Japan Joint Symposium on
Conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, Nov. 6-11.11.2000, pp. 305-312,
Non-profit Organisation (NPO)/Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR), Japan 2002. [reference cited in AMATYA in litt. 2005]
SAEED, A. (1997): Medicinal, culinary and aromatic plants in Pakistan. In: Medicinal, culinary and aromaticplants in the Near East. Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting organized by the Forest
Products Division. FAO Forestry Department and the FAO Regional Office for the Near East 1921 May 1997 Cairo, Egypt.
SAMANT, S.S., U. DHAR & L.M.S. PALNI (1998): Medicinal Plants of Indian Himalaya: Diversity Distribution
Potential Value. pp. 155-158. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, Uttaranchal, India.
SCHIPPMANN, U., German CITES Scientific Authority (1997): in litt. to IUCN Species Survival Commission,
Cambridge, UK.
SHAH, G.M. & A. KHAN (undated): Checklist of medicinal plants of Siran Valley Mansehra-Pakistan. Department of Botany, Govt Post Graduate College, Abbottabad *Department Of Plant Sciences,
Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad-Pakistan. http://www.siu.edu/~ebl/leaflets/mujtaba.htm.
SHRESTHA, K.K., J.P. SAH, & S.K. GHIMIRE (1996): Diversity and Conservation Strategy of Potential Medicinal Plants in Manang (Gyasumdo Valley). -35 pp, King Mahendra Trust for Natural Conservation,
Annapurna Conservation Area Project, and Central Department of Botany, Tribhuvan University,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
SHRESTHA, T.B., IUCN Nepal (2000): in litt. to T. Mulliken, TRAFFIC International (25.02.2000).
SUBEDI, B. & R. SHRESTHA (1999): Plant profile. Himalayan Bioresources 3: 14-15. [reference cited in
CHAUHAN & NAUTIYAL 2005]
THAPA & PRASAD (2000): [reference cited in AMATYA in litt. 2005]
TIWARI, K.C. & H.C. JOSHI (1974): Economics of medicinal herbs cultivation in hills (Kuman and Uttarakhanda). J. Res. Ind. Med. 9(1): 73-78.
TRAFFIC INDIA (1998): Medicinal plants significant trade study. CITES project (S 109). India country report. - 103 pp., TRAFFIC India, unpublished report, New Delhi, India.
TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

59

USDA (2006): ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville. http://www.arsgrin.gov (Viewed 24.06.2006).
VANTOMME, P., A. MARKKULA & R.N. LESLIE (Eds.) (2002): Non-wood forestry products in 15 countries oftropical Asia: An overview. FAO, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/AB598E/AB598E00.pdf(Viewed 11.05.2005).
VED, D.K., G.A. KINHAL & al. (2003a): Conservation Assessment & Management Prioritisation for the Medicinal Plants of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya & Sikkim. Foundation for Revitalisation of
Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.
VED, D.K., G.A. Kinhal, K. Ravikumar, V. Prabhakaran, U. Ghate, R.V. Sankar, & J.H. Indresha (2003b):
Conservation Assessment & Management Prioritisation for the Medicinal Plants of Northwest Himalayan states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal. Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.
WEBERLING, F. (1975): On the systematic of Nardostachys (Valerianaceae). Taxon 24(4): 443-452.
YANG, Y.C. (ed.). (1996): Tibetan Materia Medica. Qinghai People’s Press, Qinghai, China.
ZAMAN, M.B. & KHAN, M.S. (1970): Hundred Drug Plants of West Pakistan. Medicinal Plant Branch of the
Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan.
ZHANG, Y-J., LI, W. & ZHENG, M. (eds). (1994): Chinese-English Chinese Traditional Medicine World Dictionary. Shanxi People’s Press, Shanxi, China.

60

Picrorhiza kurrooa

Picrorhiza kurrooa
Taxonomy

Picrorhiza kurrooa ROYLE ex BENTH (family Scrophulariaceae)

Synonyms

Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora PENNELL (part); Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (PENNELL)
HONG (part)

Note:

The genus Picrorhiza was originally considered monotypic, comprising the single widespread species P. kurrooa, until PENNELL (1943) distinguished a second species,
Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora, which was subsequently placed in a separate genus,
Neopicrorhiza, by HONG (1984), although the original generic name is still widely used forthe latter species. The two species are apparently largely or entirely allopatric, with P. kurrooa occurring in the Western Himalaya and N. (P.) scrophulariiflora found further east, although a sketch map in SMIT (2000) indicates a small area of apparent sympatry in northeast Uttar Pradesh (the Himalayan sections of which are now Uttaranchal), India. MILL
(2000) has subsequently described a second species of Neopicrorhiza (N. minima) from
northern Bhutan. For further details on the taxonomic history of Picrorhiza andNeopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora see SMIT (2000). The species P. kurrooa and N. scrophulariiflora are distinguished solely on floral characteristics and there is currently no way ofseparating those parts in trade (rhizomes and various derivatives thereof), other than byinference when the collection locality is known. Moreover, the designation Picrorhiza kurrooa is still sometimes used to cover all populations, although the CITES listing of P. kurrooa is contains a note stating that it excludes Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora.
The account in preparation includes information on both Picrorhiza kurrooa andNeopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora. Every attempt has been made to avoid ambiguity. Where
appropriate, the common name Kutki, which can apply to rhizomes of both Picrorhiza andNeopicrorhiza, is used rather than one or other scientific name.
It is important to note that while the existing CITES annotation for P. kurrooa refers only to“roots”, the main parts of the plants that are in trade are not actually roots but undergroundstems or rhizomes. The latter term is used in the CITES Guide to Plants in Trade(MATHEW 1994) and the Checklist of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and Their Trade
Names Covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97 (LANGE & SCHIPPMANN, 1999).
Texts referring to the medicinal properties of these species (e.g. ANON. 1993, JAIN 1994,
KEYS 1976, YANG 1996) use both “root” and “rhizome” to refer to the plant parts in trade.
The extent to which the true roots are used is unclear. The text that follows generally refers to the parts used and traded as “rhizomes”, following LANGE & SCHIPPMANN (1999);
however, it should be understood that this may refer to both roots and rhizomes. “Root” isused in cases where this is the specific term used by the source being cited. A proposal
to amend this annotation to cover all parts and derivatives except “seeds and pollen” and“finished products packaged and ready for retail trade” will be considered by the 14th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (The Hague, June 2007).

Trade names

Gorki (Gurung), Hodling (she), Honglen (she), Hong-len (tib), Hugling (she), Kadu (Himachal Pradesh), Karroo (Pakistan), Katuka (san), Kaur Kutki (Pakistan), Kuraki (Tamang), Kutaki (Gurung, Lhotshampkha), Kutki (Lhotshampkha, nep), Ngo-Honglen (bhu),
Picrorhiza rhizome (chi), Puti-shing (Dzongkha), Xuan hu lian (chi) (AKHTER in litt. 2005,
AMATYA in litt. 2005, CHU 2004, MUKHIA 2004, RASTOGI & PANT 2004).

Description. Both Picrorhiza kurrooa and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora are small, slightly hairy, longlived perennial herbs with elongated creeping stolons emerging from a rhizomatous rootstock which is
described as having a thick skin, wrinkled and prominently striated. The vegetative parts of the two species are visually indistinguishable. Rhizomes are long and slender, often zigzagging, and do not taper.
They are evanescent inside and can be easily compressed. Dried rhizomes are cylindrical, deep greyish
brown in colour and longitudinally wrinkled with annulations at the tip. Leaves mainly basal, narrowly elliptic to spatulate and coarsely, sharply dentate, 1.5-5 cm long, 0.5-1.2 cm wide (SMIT 2000). Flowers pink,light blue or purple-blue, in a cylindrical terminal spike, arising from a rosette. According to NAUTIYAL &NAUTIYAL (2004) two morphological variants of Picrorhiza kurrooa exist in Garhwal Himalayas (India), a
narrow-leaf variant generally found in open pastures and near springs, and a broad-leaf variant foundgenerally under the shrub canopy. It is not clear if these are genetic variants or merely reflect phenotypicvariation under different growing conditions.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

61

The flowers of the two species can be distinguished as follows: in Picrorhiza kurrooa the corolla is 4-5 mm
long, five-lobed and nearly actinomorphic (that is nearly radially symmetrical, an unusual feature in members of the Scrophulariaceae); the stamens are many times longer than the corolla; in Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora the corolla is 9-10 mm long, four-lobed and bilabiate with stamens equalling the corolla inlength (SMIT 2000). The fruits of N. scrophulariiflora are found in many-seeded capsules, with about eight
fruits per flowering ramet and some 6-18 seeds per fruit (GHIMIRE & al. 2005).
N. scrophulariiflora has been reported to flower in June-July and to fruit from August onwards in Nepal by
GHIMIRE & al. (2005), who note that the timing of fruiting varies with altitude. Others report that flowering
extends into August with fruiting taking place from October to November (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Seeds ofN. scrophulariiflora are dispersed by wind, water and gravity, and germinate in May or June but germination rates are low and there is no persistent seed bank (GHIMIRE & al. 2005). According to RASTOGI & PANT
(2004), flowering and seed production of P. kurrooa in Himachal Pradesh take place in the third year.
Plants may root from stem nodes. In addition, underground rhizomes may sprout to form new rosettes
some distance from the mother plant (AMATYA in litt. 2005, ANSAB 1999, GHIMIRE & al. 2005, IUCN-NEPAL
2004, LAMA & al. 2001, MANANDHAR 2002).
Distribution. See SMIT (2000) for a detailed list of localities in which P. kurrooa and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora have been identified.
Picrorhiza kurrooa is recorded from India and Pakistan. In India, SMIT (2000) lists localities in Jammu &Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (the Himalayan sections of which are now Uttaranchal).
The main altitudinal range is 3000-4300 m, although there are records from as low as 2500 m and high as
5300 m (SMIT 2000). It occurs from 2700-4500 m in Himachal Pradesh, with its distribution in the Great
Himalayan National Park complex fairly well known both through scientific surveys and the native knowledge of collectors (RASTOGI & PANT 2004). KAUL & HANDA (2000) studied the species at seven sites in thestates of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (Uttaranchal, per the above). The habitat characteristics of each site were found to be more or less similar, suggesting microhabitat homogeneity. Soil conditions were mostly acidic with ample organic matter. The plant was found to prefer broken
rocky substrate and gentle slopes. In Pakistan Picrorhiza kurrooa is reported from the Qamri and Bruzil
passes and the high-altitude Deosai plains (RASOOL 1998). The species prefers alpine moist rocky slopes,
and typically grows above 4000 m (AKHTER in litt. 2005).
Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora is recorded from Bhutan, China, India and Nepal, with the main altitudinalrange being 4300-5200 m (SMIT 2000). Most of the range is within Nepal, with the species said to be distributed abundantly throughout the alpine Himalaya of the entire country. The altitudinal range of the species is reported to be from 3500 m to over 5200 m with preferred habitat homogeneous, broken rocky
substrate, mainly on moist acidic soils rich in organic matter in meadows and shrublands, including open
rocky pasture land, and on stony slopes, with a preference for rocky crevices (GHIMIRE & al. 2005, IUCNNEPAL 2004, MANANDHAR 2002). In India there are records from eastern Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim (SMIT2000). The species occurs in protected zones, in particular in Uttaranchal: Askot, Govind and Kedarnath
Wildlife Sanctuaries and Valley of Flowers, Nanda Devi, Govind and Gangotri National Park (KAUL in litt.
2005).
In Bhutan the species is said to occur from 2700-4880 m and to be found in Lhedi, Threga, Tshangza,
Tsodzong in Lunana, Gogona, Sephu, Pelela, Dagala (top), in Haa above 4500 m, the higher altitudes ofKhebesa-Dagana, Thimphu, Punakha, Upper Mo Chu, Upper Bumthang Chu and Upper Kulong in Tashiyangtshi (ANON. 1998, MUKHIA 2001, 2003, Unpublished, NOLTIE 1994). In China the species is recorded
from the southern part of Xizang (Tibet Autonomous Province) and southwestern Yunnan (ANON. 1997,
CHU 2004 and see map in SMIT 2000).
Population status and threats. Picrorhiza kurrooa and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora are not includedin the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006), although the family Scrophulariaceae has not been systematically reviewed. Both species are wide ranging in suitable habitat. Populations have reportedly declined in parts of
the range owing to overharvest. Habitat loss is also considered to have adversely affected populations(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1997). Collection is said to have increased in Nepal and the eastern Himalaya (i.e.
within the range of N. scrophulariiflora) but to have decreased in the Kashmir Himalaya (where the species present is P. kurrooa) as a result of which populations there are reportedly regenerating rapidly (KAULin litt. 2005).
Neopicrorhiza scrophularifolia was assessed as Vulnerable2001 in Nepal during a 2001 CAMP workshop(BHATTARAI & al. 2002). However, OLSEN & LARSEN (2003), while considering the information from the
CAMP workshop a useful starting point, questioned the classifications, considering the empirical data
upon which the assessments were made to be scant, quantitative information on the status of the re62

Picrorhiza kurrooa

source and on harvest levels across Nepal lacking, and evidence of overharvest inconclusive. AMATYA (inlitt. 2005) notes that deforestation, forest fires, grazing and agriculture have contributed to habitat loss, but
considers unregulated overharvesting to be the main threat. Uncontrolled burning of pasture and forest
fires were considered the primary threats in Humla in the late 1990s, along with premature collection andunscientific harvest practice (ANSAB 1999).
GHIMIRE & al. (2005) found that N. scrophulariiflora appeared to be much less susceptible to the effects ofindiscriminate harvest than Nardostachys grandiflora. This was because in harvesting N. scrophulariiflora,
it was very likely that fragments of rhizomes extending laterally underground from the mother plant would
be left behind and would be capable of regenerating the following season. They observed significant regeneration even in study plots where 100% of plants were harvested in a season. Such regeneration was
thought much more likely to be from rhizome fragments than from seed – as noted above, seed germination rate appears to be very low.
In the Red Data Book of Indian Plants (NAYAR & SASTRY 1988), P. kurrooa (sensu lato, that is, including
any Indian populations of N. scrophulariiflora) is classified as “vulnerable”. According to the supportingstatement provided with India’s CITES listing proposal for the species, Picrorhiza kurrooa was thought tobe common in India until the 1970s or 1980s, when perhaps over 60% of the population was destroyed
because of collection prior to the fruiting season, which inhibited regeneration GOVERNMENT OF INDIA(1997). KALA (1997) considered that populations had declined by 75% in Uttar Pradesh, a Conservation
Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshop in the same year considering India’s population as“threatened with extinction” and classifying it as “endangered” (TANDON 1997). In 2003, a second CAMP
workshop assessed populations as: Critically Endangered2001 in Uttaranchal (where the species concerned would be P. kurrooa); Endangered2001 in Arunachal Pradesh (P. kurrooa), Jammu & Kashmir(P. kurrooa) and Himachal Pradesh (P. kurrooa); and Vulnerable2001 in Sikkim (N. scrophulariiflora), on thebasis of each population being affected by habitat degradation and loss, and harvest for medicine andtrade (RAWAT in litt. 2005, VED & al. 2003a & 2003b). RAWAT (in litt. 2005) states that natural disasters(e.g. floods, land slides), human-induced habitat loss and degradation, and harvest for sale to domestic
markets continue to be the major threats in India.
MUKHIA (2004) refered to the species as being “very rare” in Bhutan, noting that detailed surveys have notbeen done to confirm the availability of the resource. A review of its abundance in the Dzongkhags indicated it was “quite rare” in that location. In China, quantitative data are lacking, but N. scrophulariiflora
was assessed as “endangered” in the China Plant Red Data Book (FU & JIN 1992), and as a Category III
species in the Regulation of China on Protection of Medicinal Resources (1987), indicating it is considereda “major and commonly used and wild medicinal species whose resources are reducing” (TRAFFIC EASTASIA in litt. 2004).
In Pakistan the species is reported to be declining because of habitat disturbance related to changes inland use brought about by increased tourism, human settlement and road building. Unsustainable harvestand natural disasters, e.g. floods and landslides, are also considered a threat, though less severe thanhabitat disturbance. Pollution is considered a lesser threat. Climate change is causing an upward shift in
the permanent snow cover and therefore population declines in the lower elevation range of distribution(AKHTER in litt. 2005).
Medicinal uses
Plant parts used for medicinal purposes: Rhizomes and, to a lesser extent, roots. As far as is known, no
distinction in use is made between P. kurrooa and N. scrophulariiflora.
In Bhutan, Kutki is used as a medicine for coughs, colds and fever. The National Institute of Traditional
Medicines and other indigenous hospitals use the rhizomes as an ingredient in manufacturing medicine(MULLIKEN 2000).
Use of Kutki in traditional medicine is China is believed to date back at least to the first century AD (FU1993, ZHANG & al. 1994). It is said to have an effect on fever, malnutrition due to digestive disorders, jaundice, diarrhoea and dysentery (ZHANG & al. 1994). The species is also used in traditional Tibetan medicine. In Hong Kong, the plant is probably not widely used and rarely traded.
Kutki is widely used in Ayurvedic and Unani traditional medicines in India with the rhizomes prized fortheir efficacy as an antibiotic. It is regarded as one of the major components of Arogyavardhini, a potent
Ayurvedic formulation used to treat liver ailments. Kutki is also used as an adulterant of, or as a substitutefor, Gentiana kurroo (KHAN & ZAIDI 1989, ZAMAN & KHAN 1970). Pharmaceutical uses of Kutki are also
being explored within India (see below).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

63

In Nepal, the roots have a wide range of uses, for example to treat coughs, skin disease, fever, indigestion, liver disease, jaundice, hepatitis and metabolic disorders. Formulators in Kathmandu reported that it
is used as a purgative and laxative and to treat scorpion bites (AMATYA in litt. 2005), with uses also including treatment of high blood pressure, intestinal pain, eye disease, gastritis, bile disease, sore throats,blood, and lung fever (LAMA & al. 2001). It is considered a bitter tonic, antiperiodic (preventing regularreoccurrence of the symptoms of a disease), used as a cholagogue (promoting the flow of bile from thegall bladder), stomachic (stimulating gastric activity) and cathartic (purgative) (IUCN NEPAL 2004). GHIMIRE& al. (2005) note that in Nepal Kutki is used both by amchi (specialists trained in the Tibetan medical system or Sowa Rigpa) and by non-specialists, in the latter case largely for treating coughs and colds.
Kutki is used in the Ayurvedic and Greek-Arab systems of medicine in Pakistan, most commonly as anaromatic, carminative agent, stimulant and as a remedy for coughs, bronchial asthma, persistent hiccups
and diseases of blood, liver, kidney and skin. Under the name of Qusttalakh, P. kurrooa is used in two
herbal preparations (Maajon-e-murravehul-azwah and roghane-qust-talakh, an essential oil), which arealso used for treatment of hypothermia, debility, tremors, tetanus and gout (HAMDARD 1968).
Research has been undertaken to explore the pharmaceutical use of Kutki, the active compounds ofwhich include the iridoid glycosides picroside and kutkoside. SINGH (2004) uses the term “kutkins” to referto these compounds, a term also used to refer to the active ingredients in several over-the-counter herbal
products containing Kutki marketed, for example, in North America. Some products contain “Picroliv”, amixture containing 60% picroside I and kutoside in the ratio of 1:1.5 obtained from Picrorhiza kurrooa(roots and rhizomes) developed by India’s Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI, undated), and in phase
III clinical trials for hepatoprotective functions (IMAM 2006).
Other uses. The rhizomes are used locally in Pakistan as an insect repellent and to prevent moth damage to woollen clothing (HAMDARD 1968). They are also used in the religious ceremonies of Buddhists andburnt as aromatic incense (IUCN PAKISTAN in litt. 2005).
Harvest and processing. OLSEN (2005a) estimated that global annual production of Kutki for trade wasin the order of 650-1000 t, of which a maximum of 50-300 t was believed on the basis of origin to be
Picrorhiza kurrooa and the remainder Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora. This figure excluded production
within China and Pakistan. Amounts produced in each of these countries are unknown, but are unlikely to
be very large, given the apparently limited range of the species in these two countries. Approximately twothirds of the Kutki in trade was believed to originate in Nepal, around 20% in India and the remaining 15%
in Bhutan.
It appears that the common practice throughout the range of the species is to uproot the entire plant during collection, but to use only the rhizome, and possibly also the roots. Mature plants – those three to four
years old – are considered most suitable for harvest, particularly after fruiting and especially when dormant as this is when the content of the active ingredients is highest (KAUL in litt. 2005, RASTOGI & PANT
2004, RAWAT in litt. 2005, SINGH 2004). As noted above, the timing of fruiting varies with altitude and canrange from August until November (GHIMIRE & al. 2005).
In their study comparing harvesting patterns of Nardostachys grandiflora (q.v.) and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora in northwest Nepal, GHIMIRE & al. (2005) noted that collection for trade (that is for national andinternational markets away from the study site) was far more indiscriminate than collection by amchi for
local use. The latter harvested selectively, only taking older plants and harvesting at the optimum season,
while the former harvested largely in response to market demand, irrespective of season and maturity ofthe plants concerned. In areas where Kutki is collected for trade, collectors perform the primary processing, such as cleaning and drying. Regional traders sometimes dry and repack the rhizomes and national
wholesalers sort and dry as well. The exporter grades the trade stock, as required by the buyers, e.g. thepharmaceutical manufacturers. The latter conduct quality assessments, testing the active ingredients insamples provided by the exporter (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
Harvest and trade of the species in Nepal has been extensively studied (see GHIMIRE & al. 2005,
MULLIKEN 2000, OLSEN 2005a). OLSEN (2005a) estimated total annual production as varying from something under 200 t to around 800 t, with perhaps 500 t harvested in fiscal year 1997/1998. Virtually all production is in high mountain regions, with just under 40% believed to come from the Mid-Western Development Region and 30% from the Eastern Development Region, the remainder being divided between theCentral, Western and Far Western Development Regions (OLSEN 2005a). Production is highest between
4000-4250 m altitude (estimated at ca. 1300 kg/ha/year) and decreases with decline in altitude; annual
yield at 3800-4000 m is estimated at around 820 kg/ha and at 3650-3800 m, 500 kg/ha (AMATYA in litt.
2005, ANSAB 1999). There are no figures for overall standing stock. However, ANSAB (1999) made someassessment of abundance in Humla District. They estimated the area occupied by N. scrophulariiflora64Picrorhiza kurrooa

there to be some 28 000 ha, with overall total stock (fresh weight) in the range 2300-3300 t, with a medianestimate of 2800 t.
OLSEN & LARSEN (2003) found that commercial harvest of medicinal plants in general formed an integral
part of the livelihood strategies of, conservatively, 7-10% of the population in areas classified as ‘mountainregions’ in Nepal (that is, some 25 000-35 000 people), providing from 3-44% of annual income (mean12%). Using 1997/1998 data, they estimated the total annual harvester value of alpine and sub-alpine
medicinal plants to be in the range of USD0.8-3.3 million. N. scrophulariiflora was the second-most important species involved, accounting for around 30% of harvester value (USD0.2-1.0 million).
Harvest figures in Nepal based on forest revenue figures indicate far lesser quantities harvested (see Table 1), particularly from 2001-2003 when a restriction on collection was in force (see ‘legislation’) (AMATYA
in litt. 2005). There is insufficient information to confirm whether these figures demonstrate a genuine
dramatic decrease in harvest levels since the work of OLSEN in the late 1990s. Given what is believed tobe continued strong demand for Kutki and generally low enforcement of national harvest and trade controls (e.g. see OLSEN 2005a), it seems more likely that official trade figures reflect only a portion of actual
harvest levels during the years in question.
Table 1. National collection and sales figures based on royalty (forest revenue) records
Kutki (Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora)
Fiscal year

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004

Quantity kg (dry weight)

46 90539 106

115

350

5 200

Source: Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Nepal, cited in AMATYA in litt. (2005).

In India, the main geographical area of collection is Uttaranchal, in particular Kumaon between
3400-4000 m altitude. This area is barely cultivated (RAWAT in litt. 2005).
In Pakistan, IUCN PAKISTAN (in litt. 2005) notes that local peoples (Gujjars (Bakarwal) and Hakims) collectthe plant as and when needed. The forest department has reportedly not been involved in the harvest of
Kutki since 1992 (AKHTER in litt. 2005).
The species is not known to be commercially cultivated in China; all plant material is believed to be derived from wild sources (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt. 2004).
Cultivation. RASTOGI & PANT (2004) report that Picrorhiza kurrooa was found to respond “extremely well”
to mass propagation in nurseries and experimental plantation trials in the forests of Himachal Pradesh,
India, with multiplication best achieved through root cuttings, an average of four of which could be obtained from a year-old plant. This species was planted in 25 Medicinal Plant Propagation Areas in 2001
and 2002, with an inventory of 145 300 plants in 2003 expected to yield 2179-2906 kg of P. kurrooa rhizomes (net weight in fresh condition soon after harvesting) in 2006. This was based on an estimated net
harvest of 15-20 g per plant harvested after three years of growth.
Propagation protocols using tissue culture are known (SAMANT & al. 1998).
NAUTIYAL & NAUTIYAL (2004) report that in nurseries about 80-90% of the seed germinates, of which
50-60% of the seedlings survive. They estimate maximum production after three years in cultivation to be
450 kg/ha at 1800 m altitude and 612 kg at 2200 m altitude. The broad-leaved variety of P. kurrooa grows
more rapidly, produces more and has a higher content of active ingredients than the narrow-leaved one.
KAUL & HANDA (2000) report on domestication experiments performed in three sites in India: Srinagar(1600 m), Kud (1750 m) and Verinag (3050 m). Mortality was highest in Srinagar, the site at the lowest
altitude, where only 20% of the cultivated specimens flowered and no seed was set. In Kud, vegetative
growth was abundant in the shade, but no flowering was observed and in Verinag, cultivation was mostsuccessful with 50% flowering and normal seed set. KAUL & HANDA (2000) concluded that the crude drug
yield for dried rhizomatous stolons and the active content were highest at higher altitude for both wild anddomesticated plants.
In Jumla, Dolpa, Gorkha and Humla, all high altitude regions in Nepal, small-scale cultivation is currently
being tested. Most projects are demonstration projects with up to one hectare of cultivated area (AMATYA
in litt. 2005).
The species is reportedly not cultivated in Pakistan (IUCN PAKISTAN in litt. 2005) and is not believed to be
cultivated in China (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt. 2004). `Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

65

National market. The main commodities in national and international trade are unprocessed rhizomes,
with smaller amounts of trade in processed products such as oil. Quantitative information on trade volumes is limited, as much of the trade is apparently unregulated and/or occurring outside established tradecontrols, and therefore undocumented.
In Nepal, where most harvesting of Kutki takes place, there is no industrial processing (OLSEN 2005a).
The bulk of harvest is evidently destined for export, primarily to India but also to China. The remainder isused locally, apparently on a small scale. Ayurvedic formulators use Kutki as a basic ingredient, for instance in the treatment of liver diseases. A sample of eight formulators in Kathmandu reported using
quantities ranging from 300-500 kg annually, with total use in the range of 700-1400 kg (AMATYA in litt.
2005).
Available data indicate that India is the major global consumer of Kutki, importing large amounts but also
making use of local harvest. Picrorhiza kurrooa was one of the 162 species for which a demand and supply study was commissioned by the Department of Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy, the Government of India and the World Health Organization (WHO), New Delhi. Demand for Kutki was estimatedat 220 t during 2001/2002 and projected to reach 317 t in 2004/2005. The price during 1999-2000 was
reported as INR150 000 (USD3435) per tonne (ANON. 2001-2002). In India, roots of Kutki were reported in
2004 as sold for INR180-190/kg (USD4.1-4.4/kg) at markets in Amritsar, Delhi and Kolkata (previously
Calcutta) from where they are also distributed to smaller markets (GUPTA in litt. 2004). One typical Indian
pharmacy reported annual demand of Kutki at 8000 kg, which was bought in Uttar Pradesh at an average
price of INR250-260/kg (USD5.7-6.0/kg) (RAMACHANDRAN in litt. 2005).
No further information was identified on markets within Bhutan, China or Pakistan, however based on
information on international trade, these may be significant.
International trade. As noted above, OLSEN (2005a) estimated the total amount of Kutki in trade (bothdomestic and international) in 1997/1998 as between 650 t and 1000 t. Of this, domestic production andtrade within India was estimated to account for 50-300 t. A majority of the remainder was believed to beexported to India from Nepal with lesser amounts exported from Nepal to China and from Bhutan to India.
With regard to China, a significant quantity of Kutki is reported to be exported regularly to Chinese Tibet
from Nepal through the northern frontiers in the Eastern and Central Development Regions of Nepal, although no official records or Customs data are available. OLSEN (2005a) estimated this trade at between
18 and 57 t annually, with around 47 t exported in 1997/1998. Earlier data indicate a substantial official
trade: during the period 1980-1985 the total import of Picrorhiza spp. (sic) into China was 456 t; data werenext available for 1994 when 100 t were reported as imported (MULLIKEN 2000). It is not known whether
export of Kutki takes place from Bhutan to China.
There is also reportedly some trade in Kutki between India and Pakistan. MULLIKEN (2000) noted that demand in Pakistan may exceed the amounts harvested domestically, with the remainder imported from
India. However, OLSEN (1999) suggested that P. kurrooa was exported from Pakistan to Uttar Pradesh. No
accurate statistical data are available, as the trade is kept secret by the traders and the companies that
manufacture products (IUCN PAKISTAN in litt. 2005).
Table 2. CITES-reported trade in Picrorhiza kurrooa (1995-2003)
Year Country Country Originof Exof Import
port
Quantity

Unit

Term

P

S

1997

IN

NZ

kg

Roots

T

A

1999

CN

DE

1999

TW

DE

2001

CN

IT

2001

CN

IT

2002

CN

IT

2002

CN

IT

11

ExportImport

CN
100
300

kg
kg

Roots
Roots

T
T

Quantity Unit

Term

P

S

5

kg

Fruit

T

A

40

g

Dried plants

S

W

100

kg

Derivatives

T

W

300

kg

Extract

T

W

W
W

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

Trade in Picrorhiza kurrooa reported to CITES is negligible (Table 2). A possible explanation was provided
by interviews which indicated that 80% of the material imported into India was processed and consumed
locally, with relatively small amounts re-exported in the form of manufactured products, e.g. medicines,

66

Picrorhiza kurrooa

which are not subject to CITES controls (MULLIKEN 2000). The great majority of international trade in unprocessed Kutki (i.e. dried rhizomes) evidently originates in Nepal and Bhutan. Neither of these countries
is a range State for Picrorhiza kurrooa, so that all this trade is exempt from CITES controls.
On the internet, raw materials, extracts and oils made of Picrorhiza kurrooa and used in pharmaceuticals,
cosmetics, perfumes and food are widely advertised by Indian companies (ANON. 2004). US companies
also offer the species, mainly under ‘Kutki’ and in particular as powder or in capsules, sometimes whole“roots”. Prices range from USD48-86/kg. Some sites indicated that packaging is done in China by a major
traditional Chinese medicine manufacturer. A minimal trade has been reported in Europe, including both
Ayurveydic and traditional Chinese medicine products (LANGE & VAN DEN BERG-STEIN in litt. 2005).
Similar species
The rhizomes are similar in appearance to some other medicinal plant species in the region and may also
be used in a similar way to treat the same or similar ailments. This increases the difficulty of acquiring an
accurate picture of the trade and trade volumes (both domestically and internationally). Gentiana kurroo
has similar properties, e.g. the ability to stimulate appetite and treat indigestion (JAIN 1994).
Illegal harvest and trade. At least some illegal collection has been reported from protected areas in Nepal, e.g. from Shey-phoksundo National Park, Dolpa (AMATYA in litt. 2005). According to AMATYA (in litt.
2005), there is probably illegal trade from Nepal, for which no data are available, for instance through misdeclaration either of quantities or commodities in trade. Olsen (2005a) draws attention to indications of“huge illegal harvest and trade” of this species in Nepal, with official District Forest Office Records for
1997/1998 being far below district level estimates of harvest. Customs authorities are generally not familiar with the species, which can facilitate illegal trade.
In India, Illegal collection takes place in wildlife sanctuaries, but is negligible in national parks (RAWAT inlitt. 2005). From 2000-2003, four seizures of Picrorhiza kurrooa (sic) destined for Malaysia, the USA andAustria were registered, with amounts ranging from 5-300 kg.
Table 3. Seizures of Picrorhiza kurrooa in India (2000-2003)
Date
06.06.00
31.07.01
01.10.02
13.11.02

Place
CWC, Virugampakkam
Chennai
IGI Air Cargo New Delhi
Seaport Chennai
IGI Air Cargo New Delhi

Destination
Malaysia
USA
Malaysia
AustriaPart- (presumably
rhizomes)- (extracts?)- (extracts?)- (extracts?)

Quantity Offence
300 kg EXIM policy
5 kg EXIM policy and CITES
10 kg EXIM policy and CITES
10 kg EXIM policy and CITES

Source: CITES Management Authority of India 2001, 2002 & 2003.

Legislation and regulations
Regulation of harvest, manufacturing and domestic trade. The main laws governing harvesting of
medicinal plants in India are the Indian Forest Act (1927), and, to a lesser extent, the Wildlife (Protection)
Act (1927/1991/2002). The Indian Forest Act (1927) consolidates the law relating to forest produce, thetransit thereof and duty thereon, and empowers State Governments to regulate the transit of forest produce, e.g. medicinal plants. The Act deals specifically with reserved, protected, and village forests. Almost
all the States and Union Territories in India have regulations regarding harvest, transit and trade in medicinal plants. Most have established lists of species banned from harvest from forests (‘Negative lists’),
which include threatened plants (Jain 2000).
The Indian Forest Act (1927) has been adopted by most of the States and is directly applicable to the Union Territories of India. The remaining States have enacted State Forest Acts of their own, which arelargely based on the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Acts of the States have been amended from time totime as required. The States have framed Rules under the Acts to protect and preserve the forest wealthof their respective States (Jain 2000). The Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules
1977 were amended in 1994 and now lay down the “pass/export permit fee” for specified medicinal plants.
The trade in some of the important and threatened medicinal plants of the State has been restricted orbanned. In 2004, the fee for a transit pass for Picrorhiza kurrooa was INR5.4/kg (USD0.12/kg) (Rastogi &Pant 2004). See Jain (2000) for a state by state analysis of legislation relevant to the harvest and trade of
medicinal plants in general.
Wildlife harvest and domestic trade controls are implemented in Nepal’s national parks, conservation
areas and protected areas via the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973); elsewhere in the
country, implementation is via the Forest Act (1993) and the accompanying Forest Regulation (1995)
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

67

(AMATYA in litt. 2005, ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000, SHRESTHA in litt. 2000). A summary of these andrelated controls for medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products has been compiled by the Asia
Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) and can be found on their website(BINAYEE undated).
The Forest Act and Regulation stipulate rules governing the collection of forest products. Collection is
authorized via licences issued by District Forest Officers (DFO). Licences are required to specify the collection area; the period in which harvest is to take place; the species and quantities to be collected; andmethod of harvest (AMATYA in litt. 2005, OLSEN in litt. 2000). Licence applicants are required to provide thisinformation and specify the purpose of collection. In accordance with the Regulation, District Forest Officers are required to verify the quantity of medicinal plants collected, collect any associated fees, and issue
a “release order”, which is required to transport harvested plants out of the district of origin. The releaseorder should state: the species and quantity transported; the destination; and the period in which transportation must take place (ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). There is also a provision to allow harvest andtrade licences to be sold at auction (ARYAL 2000). Conflicting information was received regarding whether
export of N. scrophulariiflora was limited to processed or partially processed products, or whether exportof unprocessed rhizomes was also allowed.
In their 2001 study in the Dhading District, PANDIT & THAPA (2004) found that implementation of these licensing provisions was low in government forests, reflecting a combination of a lack of resource management rights among the local population and low government enforcement capacity. Inspection of harvested materials to ensure compliance with licence provisions was considered to be low. Adherence tolicence provisions was similarly found to be low in community forests, where permitting provisions still
applied, but harvest rights were restricted to members of forest user groups. Others have similarly noted
low levels of implementation of national harvest and trade controls for medicinal plants and other nontimber forest products (e.g. see MULLIKEN 2000, OLSEN 2005a).
In 2001, a restriction on collection, utilization, sale, transport, distribution and particularly export ofN. scrophulariiflora was adopted (Clause 1 of Nepal Gazette Vol. 3, Section 51 No. 36 dated 31 December
2001 issued by Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation). In 2003, this restriction was lessened by afurther notification (Nepal Gazette Vol. 3 Section 53 No. 31 dated 17 November 2003) based on the Forest Act 1993. The Department of Forests may supply export permits for N. scrophulariiflora based on arecommendation by the Department of Plant Resources on the availability of the species (AMATYA in litt.
2005).
Protection of flora and fauna in Bhutan is provided for under the Forest and Nature Conservation Act,
1995. Despite its rarity, Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora has not been included in Schedule I (the list of
totally protected species) of that Act (MHUKIA 2004). Collection from the wild, transport and trade are regulated via a permit system established under the Forest and Nature Conservation Rules, 2003. According
to a regulation issued by the Royal Government Forestry Service Division, it is necessary for regional forestry divisions to submit a quarterly report of extraction of all forest products to the central headquarters.
The reports are based on the quantities stated on permits.
Regulation of international trade
CITES listing: Picrorhiza kurrooa was first proposed for inclusion in CITES Appendix II in 1994 (CITES
CoP 9, Fort Lauderdale), with a proposal submitted by India, however this proposal was withdrawn andinstead referred to the CITES Plants Committee (KELSO 1995). A successful listing proposal was put forward by India to CITES CoP 10 (Harare, June 1997), which became effective 18 September 1997. The
listing was annotated to include only “whole and sliced roots and parts of roots, excluding manufactured
parts or derivatives such as powders, pills, extracts, tonics, teas and confectionery“ (Annotation #3). The
annotation was modified at CITES CoP 14 (The Hague, June 2007), as part of a Plants Committee process to clarify and harmonise annotations for medicinal plants. The revised annotation, effective 13 September 2007, "Designates all parts and derivatives except: a) seeds and pollen; and b) finished products
packaged and ready for retail trade”.
It is important to note that while the previous annotation of the CITES listing for P. kurrooa referred to“roots”, the main parts of the plants in trade are not actually roots but rather rhizomes (i.e. undergroundstems). According to JAIN (1994) and ZHANG & al. (1994) only the rhizomes of Picrorhiza kurrooa are used.
By contrast, KEYS (1976) refers only to roots when describing the medicinal properties of this species.
“Rhizomes” is used in the CITES Guide to Plants in Trade (MATHEW 1994) and the Checklist of Medicinal
and Aromatic Plants and Their Trade Names Covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97 (LANGE &SCHIPPMANN 1999). It seems unlikely that the lack of CITES trade data for this species reflects a conscious
decision not to implement trade controls for rhizomes, however there was nevertheless the potential confusion on this point by government staff charged with implementing CITES trade controls.
68Picrorhiza kurrooa

CITES is implemented in India through a combination of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972/1991/2002 andthe Export and Import Policy (EXIM) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 andthe Customs Act, 1962. The Wildlife (Protection) Act prohibits export of a number of species, including all
six CITES Appendix I plant species native to India, of which one, Kuth Saussurea lappa, is a medicinal
plant.
Policy on trade in wildlife and wildlife products is established via the EXIM policy, which is revised periodically. The policy, as far as it concerns wildlife, is decided in consultation with the Director of Wildlife Preservation of the Government of India, who is the CITES Management Authority and oversees CITES implementation in the country. The Director has four Regional Deputy Directors and four sub-regional officesof wildlife preservation, these serving as assistant CITES Management Authorities. The EXIM policy is put
into effect via the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 and enforced
via the Customs Act (CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA in litt. 2004).
The EXIM policy was embedded within a broader Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004-2009, thischange coming into effect on 1 September 2004. The Foreign Trade Policy aims at doubling India’s sharein global trade and expanding employment opportunities, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, andincludes a Special Agricultural Produce Scheme, promoting the export of, inter alia, minor forest produce
such as medicinal plants and their value-added products. The policy outlines that all export and import
shall be “free”, i.e. unrestricted, unless regulated under any legislation. Goods imported in accordancewith this policy may be exported in the same form without a licence, provided that there is no import orexport restriction for the items. Even goods restricted for import may be imported under Customs Bond forexport without a licence provided that the items are freely exportable. Specific note is made in the policythat this does not preclude the application of other laws (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2004).
Import and export restrictions for specific products are established via India’s ITC (HS) classifications inaccordance with the broader policy. Several categories relevant to CITES-listed species have been identified as goods allowed to be imported without restriction (i.e. free of import duties or quotas), e.g. “medicinal plants, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered” (Schedule 1 Chapter 12), lac, gums,
resins and other vegetable extracts (Schedule 1, Chapter 13), pharmaceutical products (Schedule 1,
Chapter 30) and essential oils (Schedule 1, Chapter 33). Although instructions under the EXIM policy for
1997-2002 stipulated that imports of plants, products and derivatives were subject to CITES provisions(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), the low levels of trade data for imports of CITES-listed species into India indicatethat these provisions were not implemented effectively. Given that virtually all imports of this species into
India are likely to involve Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora, CITES-related import controls would not appear
to be relevant to India’s Kutki trade at this time.
As stipulated in Chapter 12 of the ITC (HS) classifications, the export of plants, plant portions, their derivatives and extracts of species included in CITES Appendix I and II obtained from the wild is generally prohibited. Further clarification is required to confirm whether this applies to wild specimens regardless of
their country of origin, or to only those specimens obtained within India. An “Export Licensing Note” appended to Chapter 12 specifies 29 plant taxa for which export is generally prohibited. This list includes
Picrorhiza kurrooa. An exception for both CITES species and those listed in the Licensing Note is madefor the export of “formulations”, defined as including “products which may contain portions/extracts ofplants on the prohibited list but only in unrecognizable and physically inseparable form” and “value added
formulations as well as herbal Ayurvedic” (Chapter 12, Export Licensing Note 3). It is not clear whether theterm “recognizable” is defined per the CITES interpretation of “readily recognizable” such that if the ingredients of a particular formulation of Ayurvedic medicine are listed on the packaging, then they are considered to be “recognizable”. The instructions include a note that states that “no certificate from any authorities whatsoever shall be required for their [formulations] export,” implying that no CITES permits would be
required for such exports. Export Licensing Note 2 states that export permits are required, however it is
not clear if this applies only to cultivated specimens, which are allowed to be exported (see below) or also
to formulations. CITES Management Authority staff have advised that, if Customs staff refer a shipment of“formulations” containing CITES-listed species to the Management Authority for clearance, then issuanceof a CITES export permit will be required (AARTI in litt. 2005).
A further exception is provided for exports of wild CITES-listed species on a case by case basis for “lifesaving drugs”, which could presumably be applied to any medicinal species. However, in this case a
CITES permit would be required, with such trade only allowed on recommendation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Exports of plants produced via cultivation are allowed subject to obtaining a transit pass from the relevant
Divisional Forest Officer if the plants were cultivated in sites within forests, or a Certificate of Cultivationfrom a District Agriculture, Horticulture or Forest Officer if cultivated at sites outside forests. Export Licensing Note 2 included in this schedule states that “However, in respect of CITES species, a CITES permit of
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

69

export shall be required”. As noted above, it appears that this provision relates to all but formulations;however, this requires further clarification.
It does not appear that export restrictions on wild specimens of CITES-listed species apply to imported
specimens, however this requires confirmation. It also does not appear that there are any specific provisions made for controlling re-exports of CITES-listed species, other than as may be required to prove thatre-exports do not involve wild-collected stock from within India. No reference could be found to an earlier(2003) provision requiring exporters of value-added formulations made out of imported species from thelist of “prohibited plants” to provide an affidavit to Customs authorities at the time of export that the specimens were legally imported (NTF NO. 03/2003 31/03/2003). However, CITES Management Authority staff
state that proof of import is required prior to granting re-export permission, and that they take into account,for example, the amount of unprocessed product that would have been required on import to produce agiven export quantity (JAIN in litt. 2005). CITES Re-export Certificates are issued for such shipments(AARTI in litt. 2005).
Exports are required to be limited to the following ports: Mumbai, Nhava Sheva, Kolkata, Cochin, Delhi,
Chennai, Tuticorin, Amritsar, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
2004). It is not clear if this relates to all plants covered under this Customs classification, or only to CITESlisted species and other medicinal species for which export is prohibited.
All violations of the EXIM policy constitute an offence under the Customs Act and are dealt with by Customs officials, who alone have the responsibility to enforce compliance with CITES at border posts. Inspection of consignments by Wildlife Inspectors, co-operating with Customs staff, may also be carried out
at border crossings, but such specialist investigations are few. Enforcement of any violations detected is
the responsibility of the Customs authorities (PANDA in litt. 1998).
As Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora, the only species to occur in Nepal, is not listed in the CITES Appendices, the following is not relevant at present. However, it would become so should the species be includedin the Appendices in future, as has been recommended for consideration. There is no specific CITESimplementing legislation in Nepal, however legislation to promote more effective CITES implementation
has been under consideration since the late 1990s. If agreed, the Rare (Endangered) Wildlife and Plants
Trade Control Act, 2057 (2002) would provide a more powerful legal tool for CITES implementation within
Nepal, and includes a number of CITES-relevant provisions (HEINEN & CHAPAGAIN 2002).
Nepal’s CITES Management Authority for plants is the Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation. The CITES Scientific Authority for plants is the Department of Plant Resources, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation. The Management Authority issues export permits for plants covered by
CITES and/or the Forest Act that are in a processed or semi-processed form (BISTA in litt. 2000).
The Management Authority also maintains liaison with the Department of Customs, Intelligence, Policeand other agencies. However, it was noted in 2000 that Customs officers had not been trained in the identification of medicinal plants (BISTA in litt. 2000); it is unknown if training has been provided since that time.
Personnel from the Department of Forests and District Forest Offices have been posted at the Customs
points in the Terai to examine consignments containing wild flora (ARYAL 2000).
Treaty of Trade between Nepal and India
In an effort to expand trade between their two countries, the Governments of India and Nepal entered intoa bilateral trade agreement in 1991. The treaty provides for preferential treatment (exemption from Customs duty and quantitative restrictions) of trade of certain “primary products”, which include forest producethat has not undergone processing, and Ayurvedic and herbal medicines (Article IV) (ANON. 2002). Under
this treaty, a certificate of origin issued by the Government of Nepal is the only document required forpresentation to India’s Customs authorities at the time of import (MULLIKEN 2000). Trade in conjunction
with the treaty is required to take place via one of the 22 border crossings designated in Annex A of thetreaty. During the late 1990s, border officials were unaware that CITES documentation might also be required for export (as noted above, under India’s current CITES implementing legislation and the EXIM
Policy, CITES export permits would not be required to accompany shipments into India in any event). The
treaty contains provisions for stronger domestic measures on the part of national governments, and provides a list of articles not allowed preferential treatment (e.g. cigarettes and alcohol) as an annex. It appears that this Annex could be amended to reflect CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
TRAFFIC India informed Government authorities in both India and Nepal of the apparent relevance of thistreaty with respect to CITES trade controls. Initial research results from this study were communicated tothe second Indo-Nepal Trans-border Meeting in February 1999. As a result, the final resolution of thatmeeting called for bringing the bilateral treaty in line with CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).

70Picrorhiza kurrooa

The treaty was extended for a further five years in 2002 and remained in effect until 5 March 2007 (ANON.
2002). Although some amendments were made, these did not reflect the concerns raised regarding
CITES implementation (AMATYA in litt. 2005). The treaty has been extended for a further five years, andwill remain in effect until 5 March 2012.
As Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora is not listed in the CITES Appendices, the following is not relevant atpresent. However, it would become so should the species be included in the Appendices in future, as has
been recommended for consideration. A series of regulations implementing CITES within China, the Import and Export Regulations of Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora, came into effect on 1 September 2006.
In addition, other laws contribute to the implementation of the Convention in this country. China’s Law ofWild Plant Protection took effect 1 January 1997. Under this law, protected plant species are classified
into those of “national key significance” and those of “local key significance”. Protected plant species ofnational key significance are further divided into Category I and Category II protected species. Trade in
Category I protected species is not allowed. Trade in plant species listed as Category II is subject to authorization by the relevant government agencies at the provincial/autonomous region level. The State Forestry Administration, the Ministry of Agriculture and other authorized governmental authorities at the provincial/autonomous region level are responsible for enforcing the Law of Wild Plant Protection. A list of
255 species is appended to this law. From 1 January 1998, China’s regulatory system for the export ofwild animals and plants was strengthened by the Endangered Species Import and Export Management
Office (under the State Forest Administration), the designated CITES Management Authority, and theCustoms Authority. A wide range of animals and plants with their corresponding Harmonized System Customs codes are specified in an annex attached to a Joint Notification from the Management Authority andthe Customs Authority. The list is said to be compiled on the basis of the CITES Appendices and the listsof key national protected animals and plants. The Notification was amended in February 1999 to include
Picrorhiza kurrooa. The Notification has been circulated among the officers of the Management Authority
and Customs across the country and was copied to various other governmental agencies. Trade in live
animals or plants, parts in their raw form, and products made from those animals and plants specified on
the said list are controlled. According to the Notification, where applicable, import/export permits or certificates are required.
It is unclear whether exports of Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora are allowed from Bhutan at present. The
Forest Resources Development Division of the Royal Government of Bhutan has suggested that harvest
be limited to domestic use, and conducted in accordance to strict guidelines owing to the species’ rarity,and comment that it was important to be very cautious with respect to exports, which the Division did not
like to recommend at that time (MHUKIA 2004).

Conclusions
There is a rapidly growing body of information concerning the harvest and trade of Kutki, particularly within
Nepal, and, to a lesser extent, in India. This trade involves the rhizomes of two, and possibly three species, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora and the recently described N. minima. Picrorhiza
kurrooa is found mainly in India, its range extending into Pakistan. Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora is foundthroughout much of Himalayan Nepal. Its range extends into China and both westwards and eastwards
into India, with N. scrophulariiflora and Picrorhiza kurrooa having overlapping ranges in Uttaranchal, andonly Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora being found in Sikkim. N. scrophulariiflora also occurs in Bhutan,
which is also home to N. minima.
The main demand for Kutki is within India, where the rhizomes are used for the preparation of traditional
medicines. This demand is met by both domestic and foreign harvests, with Nepal the main source of
foreign supply, and trade also taking place from Bhutan and possibly Pakistan. China, where the species
is also used in traditional medicines, obtains supplies both from domestic populations and through imports
from Nepal. There are at least small-scale exports of finished products containing Kutki from both China
and India. Kutki is also used in traditional medicines within Bhutan and Pakistan.
There is no indication that demand for Kutki, and therefore harvest to meet it, will decline in the foreseeable future. As a result, concerns regarding the impacts of harvest on the status of the species, including
evidence of declines in India and Nepal, continue to be merited. Detailed studies of regeneration rates
have been undertaken at some sites, with a recent study in Nepal indicating that Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora can regenerate well under suitable harvest conditions.
Although local and national harvest and trade controls for Kutki appear to be comprehensive on paper inIndia and Nepal, implementation and enforcement of these controls seem to be low. The role of CITES in
the regulation of international trade in Kutki is minimal, as the main species in trade, N. scrophulariiflora, is
not CITES-listed, and trade in the CITES-listed species Picrorhiza kurrooa from India is likely to involve
finished products, which are not covered by the CITES listing of this species.
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

71

More than five years have passed since a CITES Secretariat funded study first drew attention to the problems associated with the trade and implementation of trade controls for Kutki, the findings of this study
having been presented to the CITES Plants Committee and subsequently published. Although a great
deal more research on the species has been published since that study, the situation with regard to harvest management and trade controls remains largely the same.
Given the strong and persistent demand for Kutki, evidence of decline in some of the range of the twomain species in trade, and the importance of harvest and trade to rural livelihoods, greater attention
should be paid to developing and promoting sustainable harvest methods. Implementation of these methods should be supported by a policy framework that provides incentives for sustainable management andtrade within established controls. The dependence of rural households on Kutki for income should betaken into account in any policy development, including when considering whether additional species
should be listed in CITES Appendix II. Further, as noted by Olsen (2005b), concerted action to reduce
harvests or trade in one country may simply shift harvest pressure to neighbouring countries, and therefore fail to achieve wider conservation objectives. A regional approach to managing this regional resource
would be preferable, involving a range of stakeholders from both range States and consumer countries.

Possible next steps
Range States for Picrorhiza kurrooa and Neopicrorhiza spp. might consider:•

Co-convening a regional multi-stakeholder workshop to facilitate sharing of information and experiences, and facilitate development of a regional strategy for sustainable management of these andother Himalayan medicinal plant species;•

Pursuing a programme of collaborative research and action to:
Determine the distribution and status of these species, including confirmation of rates of regenerationand causes of decline;
Determine the source and quantity of specimens in domestic and international trade;
Identify and develop sustainable harvest practices;
Review and clarify domestic harvest and trade controls and export policies for Kutki, and identify appropriate and mutually reinforcing responses with regard to the harvest and trade control problems
identified;
Develop and distribute local language and visual educational materials to support the implementationof sustainable harvest practices; andConsider the merits of a CITES Appendix II listing for Neopicrorhiza spp.

The Government of India might consider:•

Submitting a proposal to CoP 14 to modify the current annotation of the listing of the species in the
CITES Appendices to include the term “rhizomes” in addition to roots, ensuring that the term “root” ismaintained in the annotation as it is more likely to be understood by Customs officials and others implementing CITES for these species; and•Expanding existing national legislation to specifically include CITES-related controls on imports and reexports of all CITES-listed medicinal plant species, including Picrorhiza kurrooa.

The Governments of both India and Nepal might consider:•72

Modifying the Treaty of Trade between Nepal and India in order to reflect CITES requirements.

Picrorhiza kurrooa

References
AARTI, Ms. CITES Enforcement Inspector, CITES Management Authority of India (2005): pers. comm. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (16.05.05).
AKHTER, R., National Herbarium of Pakistan (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
AMATYA, G., Project Manager, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and NTFPs Project, IUCN Nepal (2005): inlitt. to TRAFFIC International.
ANON. (1993). Medicinal Plants of Nepal. Bulletin of the Department of Medicinal Plants No. 3. His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Medicinal
Plants, Thapathali, Kathmandu, Nepal. Fourth edition.
ANON. (1997). IUCN Analyses of Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices. Prepared by IUCN Species
Survival Commission and the TRAFFIC Network for the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of theParties to CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
ANON. (1998). Non Wood Forest Products, A Report on Thimpu and Paro Dzongkhags. Forest Resources
Development Section, Department of Forest, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimpu, Bhutan.
ANON. (2001-2002). Demand Study for Selected Medicinal Plants. Vol. 1. Centre for Research, Planningand Action, New Delhi, India. [reference cited in JAIN in litt. 2005]
ANON. (2002): Treaty of trade between his Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India.
http://www.tpcnepal.org.np/tagree/treatyoftradeind.htm.
ANON.

(2004): 101 Herbs (India) Impex,
kurroa.101herbs.com/ (Viewed 18.12.2004).

Herbal/Ayurvedic

products.

http://picrorhiza-

ANSAB (1999): Monitoring the Effects of Community Based Conservation and Commercial Utilisation of
Natural Products on Biodiversity in Humla, Nepal. A Biological Monitoring Report for BCN Funded
Project: Community Based Ecosystem Management for Humla, Nepal through Local Enterprise
Development. Asia Network for Small Scale Bioresources (ANSAB), Kathmandu, Nepal. [reference cited in AMATYA in litt. 2005]
ARYAL, R.S. (2000): Legislative framework and the protection of Medicinal Plants in Nepal. [reference citedin WATANABE & al. 2002]
BHATTARAI, N.K. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (12.02.2000).
BHATTARAI, N., M. KHARKI & V. TANDON (2002): Report of the CAMP workshop in Nepal. Medicinal Plant
Conservation 8:28-30.
BINAYEE, S.B. (undated): Government Regulations in NTFPs Trade. ANSAB. http://www.ansab.org/News_Fol/government_regulation.htm (Viewed 24.04.2005).
BISTA, M.S. (2000): in litt. to the CITES Secretariat (23.02.2000).
CDRI (undated): Central Drug Research Institute – Picroliv. http://www.cdriindia.org/Picroliv.htm (Viewed
27.08.2006).
CHU, J.H.K. (2004): Huang lian and Xuan hu lian. Complementary and alternative healing university.
http://alternativehealing.org/huang_lian.htm (Viewed 13.1.2005).
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2001): CITES Annual Report 2000. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2002): CITES Annual Report 2001. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2003): CITES Annual Report 2002. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant.
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (2004): Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. Ministry of Commerce& Industry, Government of India, New Delhi on http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/ (Viewed 16.01.2005).
FU LI-KUO & JIN JIAN-MING (Eds.) (1992): China Plant Red Data Book. Rare and Endangered plants 1. 741
pp., Science Press, Beijing, New York, USA.
FU, W. (1993): History of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Bashu Publications, Sichuan, China.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

73

GHIMIRE, S.K., MCKEY, D, AUMEERUDDY-THOMAS, Y. (2005). Conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants:
harvesting patterns and ecology of two threatened species, Nardostachys grandiflora DC. andNeopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennell) Hong. Biological Conservation 124: 463-475.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1997). Proposal prepared for submission to the Tenth Meeting of the Conferenceof the Parties to CITES. Inclusion of Kutki Picrorhiza kurrooa in Appendix II.
GUPTA, O.P., Partner Om Prakash Vijay Kumar (Whole Sale trader), Delhi, India (2005): pers. comm. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (16.01.2005).
HAMDARD (1968): Qarabadain-e-Hamdard. Pharmaceutical Advisory Council, Hamdard Academy, Karachi,
Pakistan.
HEINEN, J. & D.P. CHAPAGAIN (2002): On the expansion of species protection in Nepal: Advances and pitfalls of new efforts to implement and comply with CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy 5:235-250.
IMAM, Z. (2006). CDRI Drug Discovery Innovation Chain: Towards Fulfilling Millennium Development
Goals & Sustainable Development. World Association of Industrial and Technological Research
Organisations Biennial Congress, 8-10 2006, Saskatoon, Canada. http://www.waitro.org/files/
downloads/Proceedings/congress2006/Stream2/Imam.pdf (Viewed 27.08.2006).
IUCN (2006): 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN (1999): IUCN Red List criteria review provisional report: draft of the proposed changes and recommendations. Species 31-32: 43-57.
IUCN NEPAL (2004): National Register of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Revised and updated).
xiii+202 pp. IUCN, Nepal. [reference cited in AMATYA in litt. 2005]
JAIN, S.K. (1994): Medicinal Plants. Fifth Edition. National Book Trust, New Delhi, India.
JAIN, A.K. (2000): Regulation of Collection, Transit and Trade of Medicinal Plants and other Non-Timber Forest Produce in India – A compendium. xxix +529. TRAFFIC-India/WWF India, New Delhi, India.
JAIN, P., Medicinal Plant Consultant India (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
KALA, C.P. (1997): in litt. to German Scientific Authority, Bonn. [reference cited in ANON. 1997]
KAUL, M.K., Head, Biodiversity and Applied Botany, Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu, India(05.01.2005): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant.
KAUL, M.K. and S.S. HANDA (2000): Response of Medicinal Plants to Changed Habitats and Altitudes.
Journal of Tropical Medicinal Plants 1:125-137.
KELSO, B.J. (2005): Ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES. TRAFFIC Bulletin 15(2):6376.
KEYS, J.D. (1976): Chinese Herbs: Their Botany, Chemistry and Pharmacodynamics. Charles E. Tuttle
Company Rutland, USA and Tokyo, Japan.
KHAN, A.H. & S.H. ZAIDI (1989): Propagation and Regeneration Technology of Pharmacopeial Medicinal
Plants of the Temperate Regions of Pakistan. Bulletin No. 8. Biological Sciences Research Division, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan.
LAMA, Y.C., S.K. GHIMIRE, & Y.A. THOMAS (2001): Medicinal Plants of Dolpa: Amchis Knowledge and Conservation. -150 pp., WWF Nepal Program and People & Plant Initiative, Kathmandu, Nepal. [reference cited in AMATYA in litt. 2005]
LANGE, D. & S. VAN DEN BERG-STEIN (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
LANGE, D. & U. SCHIPPMANN (Comps.) (1999): Checklist of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and their Trade
Names Covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97, vers. 3.0. Bundesamt für Naturschutz(BfN)/German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany.
MANANDHAR, N.P. (2002): Plants and People of Nepal. – +599 pp., Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon
97204, USA. [reference cited in AMATYA in litt. 2005]
MATHEW, M. (Ed.) (1994): CITES Guide to Plants in Trade. Department of Environment, UK.
MUKHIA, P.K. (2004): Management Guide for Acorus and Neopicrorhiza. Royal Government of Bhutan
Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Forest, Forest Resources Development Division, Thimphu,
Bhutan.
74

Picrorhiza kurrooa

MUKHIA, P.K. (2003): Report on Non Wood Forest Products of Dagana and Tsirang Dzongkhags. Royal
Government of Bhutan Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Forest, Forest Resources Development Division, Thimphu. [reference cited in MUKHIA 2004]
MUKHIA, P.K. (2001): Non Wood Forest Products in Gasa, Punakha and Wangduephodrang Dzongkhags.
A Report. Royal Government of Bhutan Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Forest, Forest Resources Development Division, Thimphu, Bhutan. [reference cited in MUKHIA 2004]
MUKHIA, P.K. (Unpublished): Non Wood Forest Products Report on Chhukha, Samtse & Sarpang. Royal
Government of Bhutan Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Forest, Forest Resources Development Division, Thimphu, Bhutan. [reference cited in MUKHIA 2004]
MULLIKEN, T.A. (2000): Implementing CITES for Himalayan Medicinal Plants Nardostachys grandiflora andPicrorhiza kurrooa. In: TRAFFIC Bulletin 18: 63-72.
NAUTIYAL M.C. & B.P. NAUTIYAL (2004): Agrotechniques for High Altitude Medicinal and Aromatic Plants.
pp. 99-133. High Altitude Plant Physiology Research Centre, Srinagar, Uttaranchal & Bishen
Singh Mahenra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, Uttaranchal, India.
NAYAR, M.P. & A.R.K. SASTRY (Eds.) (1988): Red data book of Indian plants 2. - 268 pp., Botanical Surveyof India, Calcutta, India.
NOLTIE, H.J. (1994). Flora of Bhutan, Vol. 3 Part 1. Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. [reference cited in MUKHIA 2004]
OLSEN, C.S. (1998): The trade in medicinal plants from Nepal: status and possible improvements. Themepaper presented at the International Conference on Medicinal Plants, Bangalore, India, 16-19
February, 1998. 12pp. [reference cited in OLSEN 1999]
OLSEN, C.S. (1999). CITES Appendix II re-visited: Is the listing of Nardostachys grandiflora and Picrorhiza
kurrooa appropriate? Medicinal Plant Conservation 5:8-10.
OLSEN, C.S. University of Copenhagen and IUCN MPSG (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International(22.02.2000).
OLSEN, C.S. (2005a): Trade and conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants: Nardostachys grandiflora
DC. and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennel) Hong. Biological Conservation 125(4):505-514.
OLSEN, C.S. (2005b): Valuation of commercial central Himalayan medicinal plants. Ambio 39(8): 607-610.
OLSEN, C.S. & H.O. LARSEN (2003): Alpine medicinal plant trade and Himalayan mountain livelihood
strategies. The Geographical Journal 169(3):243-254.
PANDA, S. (1998): in litt. to TRAFFIC India (09.11.1998).
PANDIT, B.H. & G.B. THAPA (2004): A tragedy of non-timber forest resources in the mountain commons of
Nepal. Environment and Conservation 30: 283-292.
RAMACHANDRAN, K.V., Senior Manager (Materials), Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal, India (2005): in litt. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant, TRAFFIC International (10.01.2005).
RASOOL, G. (1998): Medicinal Plants of Northern Areas. BASDO, Karachi, Pakistan.
RASTOGI, A. & R. PANT (2004): FSC Certification Feasibility Assessment Report Himachal Pradesh, India.
Technical Report 2004. WWF India, New Delhi. http://assets.wwfindia.org/downloads/himachal_report.pdf
RAWAT, G.S., Head, Habitat Ecology Department, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India (2005): in litt.
to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (10.01.2005).
SAMANT, S.S., U. DHAR & L.M.S. PALNI (1998): Medicinal Plants of Indian Himalaya: Diversity Distribution
Potential Value. 155-158 pp. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, Uttaranchal, India.
SHRESTHA, T.B. IUCN Nepal (2000): in litt. to T. Mulliken, TRAFFIC International (25.02.2000).
SINGH, A.P. (2004): Kutkins - A Review of Chemistry and Pharmacology. http://www.siu.edu/~ebl/leaflets/kutkin.html/ (Viewed 02.01.2005).
SMIT, H.F. (2000): Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora, from traditional use to immunomodulatory activity. - 154
pp., University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/1920768/
inhoud.htm
TANDON, V. (1997): in litt. to Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. UK. [Reference cited in ANON. 1997]
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

75

TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (2004): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
TRAFFIC INDIA (1998): Medicinal plants significant trade study. CITES project (S 109). India country report. - 103 pp., TRAFFIC India, unpublished report, New Delhi, India.
VED, D.K., G.A. KINHAL & al. (2003a): Conservation Assessment & Management Prioritisation for the Medicinal Plants of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya & Sikkim. Foundation for Revitalisation of
Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.
VED, D.K., G.A. KINHAL, K. RAVIKUMAR, V. PRABHAKARAN, U. GHATE, R.V. SANKAR & J.H. INDRESHA(2003b): Conservation Assessment & Management Prioritisation for the Medicinal Plants ofNorthwest Himalayan states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal. Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.
WANG, D., Z. HE., B. FENG, & C. YANG (1993): Chemical constituents from Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora. Acta
Bot. Yunnanica 15(1):83-88. [reference cited in BHATTARAI in litt. 2000]
WATANABE,T., A. TAKANO, M.S. BISTA, & H.K. SAIJU (Eds) (2002): Proceeding of Nepal –Japan Joint Symposium on conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, 6-11.11.2000, pp. 2732, Non-profit Organisation (NPO)/Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan
Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR), Japan.
YANG, Y.C. (ed.). (1996): Tibetan Materia Medica. Qinghai People’s Press, Qinghai, China.
ZAMAN, M.B. & M.S. KHAN (1970): Hundred Drug Plants of West Pakistan. Medicinal Plant Branch of the
Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar, Pakistan.
ZHANG, Y-J., W. LI & M. ZHENG (eds). (1994): Chinese-English Chinese Traditional Medicine World Dictionary. Shanxi People’s Press, Shanxi, China.

76

Pterocarpus santalinus

Pterocarpus santalinus
Taxonomy

Pterocarpus santalinus L. f. (family Leguminosae)

Trade names

Agaru (kan), Agarugandhamu (tel), Almug (eng), Atti (tam), Bois de Santal rouge (fre),
Chandana (mar), Honne (kan), Kempugandha Chekke (kan), Lalchandan (hin), Lalchandan (ben), Leno de Sandalo rojo (spa), Lignum Santali rubrum (pha), Lignum Santalinum
rubrum (pha), Patrangam (mal), Pterocarpi lignum (pha), Rakta Chandan (hin), Rakta
Chandan (ben), Rakta Gandhamu (tel), Raktacandana (san), Raktacandanah (san), Raktacandanam (san), Raktachandan (ori), Raktachandana (san), Ratanjali (guj), Red Sandalwood (eng), Red Sanders (eng), Red Sanderswood (eng), Rotes Sandelholz (ger),
Rotsandelholz (ger), Sanalho vermelho (por), Santali lignum rubri (pha), Saunderswood(eng) Sivappu Chandanam (tam), Tambada (mar), Tilaparnni (mal), Yerra Chandanamu(tel), Zitan (chi) (GREEN 1995, IUCN 2004, LANGE & SCHIPPMANN 1999).

Description. Deciduous tree, girth 1.5-1.9 m, height 9-11 m. Mature after 15 years. Bark blackish-brown,
deeply cleft into rectangular plates. Heartwood dark purple and exuding a deep red juice when cut. Leaves
usually imparipinnate, leaflets three, rarely five. Flowers large and yellow, bisexual, in simple or sparingly
branched racemes (SINGH 1997). Flowering from March-late May, during the dry season (RAO & RAJU
2002). Pods 3-8 cm in diameter including the wing. Seeds reddish brown, smooth, leathery (SINGH 1997),
produced prolifically (HENRY 1994).
P. santalinus is pollinated by nocturnal bees, but geitonogamy occurs as well, as cross-pollination is limited by dry and hot conditions. The wood of most trees has a normal grain, however, there is also a rarevariant with a ‘wavy’ grain. Efforts have been made to distinguish trees with wavy-grained wood from others using morphological characteristics (LOHI DAS & DAYANAND 1984), however there does not appear tobe any morphological differences between the normal and wavy-grained trees (RAO & RAJU 1992).
The growth rate is said to be slow (ANON. 1994, ANON. 2002a), however HENRY (1994) considered thatnatural regeneration would be secured owing to high seed production. The tree is said to regenerate wellfrom coppicing, and a 40-year coppice rotation said to be practised in India (GREEN 1995).
Distribution. China (?), India, Pakistan (?), Philippines (?), Sri Lanka (?), Taiwan (?)
Generally considered as endemic to India in the southern parts of the Eastern Ghats in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (JAIN & RAO 1983, MOLUR & al. 1995, OLDFIELD & al. 1998).
Found in the dry deciduous forests of the southern Central Deccan Plateau (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka)(RAWAT & al. 2001); grows in the southern and eastern parts of Bidar district of Karnataka (ANON. 2005a);
grows in approximately 50 000 ha of forest area in Cuddapah, Chittoor, Kurnool, and Nellore districts inAndhra Pradesh according to the Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation (ANON. 2002a). According to RAO & RAJU (2002), however, it is limited to Cuddapah and Kurnool districts in that state. The
species is limited mainly to State Forests according to a Forest Department staff member (JAIN in litt.
2005). According to NIRAJ (in litt. 2004) the species occurs in the Arcot and Chengalpattu districts of Tamil
Nadu, in the Sri Venketswar Wildlife Sanctuary and is found on private land as well as in protected areas.
The Srilankamalleswara Sanctuary between the Nallamalais and Sechachalam hill ranges is known for
populations of the species (RAWAT & al. 2001). It is also reported as occurring sporadically in other states(ANON. 1994). The natural range is restricted to typically dry, hilly, often rocky ground, at altitudes of 150900 m (ANON. 1994, GREEN 1995), in areas receiving around 100 mm of rain in each of the two annual
monsoons (GREEN 1995). P. santalinus does not tolerate overhead shade or waterlogged conditions (RAO
& RAJU 2002). HENRY (1994) considered it to be sparsely distributed, with populations known to differ genetically. There is one report of the species being native to Africa (ROUBIK 1995), but this seems likely to
be in error. Its status is reported as uncertain in China (INTERNATIONAL LEGUME DATABASE & INFORMATIONSERVICE 2003) but likely to be introduced (KUMAR & SANE 2003), occurrence reported in Pakistan (RICHTER& DALLWITZ 2002) but likely to be introduced (KUMAR & SANE 2003), and introductions reported in Sri
Lanka and Taiwan. The species is said to be cultivated in the Philippines (LIST & HÖRHAMMER 1977).
Population status and threats. Pterocarpus santalinus was classified as Endangered1994 in the 1997
IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants (WALTER & GILLETT 1998) based on results of Conservation and Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshops for plants of southern India in 1995 and 1997. The
species is similarly assessed as Endangered1994 in the World List of Threatened Trees (OLDFIELD & al.
1998) and the 1994 IUCN Red List due to its small range, fragmented populations and continuing decline(IUCN 2006).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

77

The Government of India considered both legal and illegal trade to threaten P. santalinus at the time they
proposed it for inclusion in CITES Appendix II, with its restricted distribution and slow generation rate increasing the level of threat (ANON. 1994). The species was similarly considered “threatened” by GUAR
(1994) and KHAN (1994), the latter also considering habitat destruction to be a threat. RAO & RAJU (2002)
consider habitat alteration to be the primary threat. Habitat in the Central Deccan Plateau is considered
under severe threat from conversion to cash crop plantations, fuel wood collection, and overgrazing by
cattle (RAWAT & al. 2001).
HENRY (1994) considered the species unlikely to be threatened with extinction owing to its high seed production, and believed that adequate conservation methods have been taken by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department to ensure that it was not threatened by habitat destruction or international trade. According
to an Andhra Pradesh Forest Department staff member, there are very few specimens of harvestable sizein the State Forests. Illegal harvest continues to be considered a key threat (ANON. 2004a).
Medicinal uses
Plant parts used for medicinal purposes: Heartwood and its derived extracts and powders.
In India, the heartwood of P. santalinus is used in the treatment of diabetes; the anti-diabetic constituent ispterostilbene (HAU 1997). Water held in barrels made from the wood is used in the treatment of this disease (ANON. 2005a). Preparations made from the wood are used to reduce swelling, alleviate pain, stop
bleeding and treat infections (HAU 1997). A paste made from the wood has also been used to treat inflammation and skin diseases (HENRY 1994). It is also considered to be astringent, tonic disphoretic, antibilious anti-inflammatory, emetic, febrifuge and is used in treating boils, scorpion-stings and in skin diseases (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998).
Other uses. The heartwood of this species is used in the making of furniture, carvings and musical instruments. The timber has previously been reported as ‘widely used’ within India (ANON. 1994), the wood
said to be in high demand for carved house posts (ANON. 2005a). In Japan, the heartwood is used tomake musical instruments, ‘hankos’ (name seals), frames, traditional dishes and carvings (KIYONO 2005).
Timber with a ‘wavy’ grain is in particularly high demand in Japan for the manufacture of the musical instrument the ‘shamisen’, a three-stringed lute used in classical music. In general, only the neck of theshamisen is made of P. santalinus (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA-JAPAN in litt. 1994).
The heartwood of P. santalinus is also used to produce red pigments, specifically santalin, which is usedin the furniture and crafts industry and as a colouring agent in cosmetics and food (GREEN 1995, IUCN &TRAFFIC 1994, KIYONO 2005, OLDFIELD & al. 1998). A yellow isoflavone pigment, santal, is also present(GREEN 1995).
GREEN (1995) classed P. santalinus with other “insoluable redwoods”, noting that while in the past it wasused for dyeing wool, cotton and leather, with trade to Europe averaging 3000 t per year in the late 1800s,
its main use in recent years was in the food industry. It is said to impart a “sweet-spicy flavour and orange-red shades” and was normally sold to the food industry in the alcohol-soluble form, either as liquids
or powders; water-soluble forms (salts) were also available. GREEN (1995) added that the species wastraditionally used with fish products in Europe (e.g. pickled herrings). Other applications included the colouring of seafood sauces, meat products, snack food, breadcrumbs and alcoholic drinks.
P. santalinus is approved as a food dye for alcoholic beverages in the USA (HENRY 2005), and is approved as a food dye within Europe, where it has been classified as a "spice extract" rather than a foodcolourant (GREEN 1995). It has therefore not been assigned an ‘E number’, with the effect that its presence does not have to be declared on packaging. It has been imported into Germany in the form of powder or as an extract (oleoresin). According to two German traders, the use is declining, at least in partowing to difficulties in securing CITES documents for supplies from India and the wide availability of substitute colourings (see below) (LANGE 2005). P. santalinus has been mentioned as a flavouring for tea by
an Australian company (ANON. 2001).
The species is used in incense, although having little scent of its own; it is used primarily as a base powder according to web-based offers for sale. Research is said to be under way in India to exploit the species’ potential application in soaps, dyes, toys, agarbathis (incense sticks) etc. (ANON. 2002a). GREEN(1995) commented that interest had also been shown by the European food industry to expand the range
of applications.
In India, inferior wood is sold as fuel (ANON. 2002a) and the species is also used for charcoal (GREEN
1995). The leaves are used for cattle fodder (GREEN 1995). In Myanmar, it is used in fragrances andscented (incense) sticks (KHIN 1995). Pterostilbene has insecticidal properties (HAU 1997).

78

Pterocarpus santalinus

Substitutes: RAO & RAJU (2002) state that three of the four Pterocarpus species occurring in India arevalued and harvested for santalin: P. santalinus, P. dalbergioides, limited to the Andamans and P. indicus,
introduced from Malaysia. A trader in Germany notes that there are many alternative products, that can beused as substitutes, for example cochineal and santalins from other species (LANGE 2005). Another species, Andenathera pavonina, also regularly referred to as ‘red sandalwood’, ‘rubywood’ and other common
names used for P. santalinusis, is similarly used to produce santalin-based dyes. A US chemical supplieroffering ‘red sandalwood powder’ appeared to treat the two species interchangeably (ANON. 2004b). Mostof the “red sanders” currently available on the German market (e.g. in pharmacies) comes from othertrees, mainly West African Red Sanders. The colour obtained from these trees is light red and not as dark
as the true Red Sanders colour (LANGE 2005).
All four Pterocarpus species occurring in India are said to be valued for their wood, but only P. santalinus
is highly valued for its heavy dark red heartwood, especially that possessing a wavy grain (RAU & RAJU
2002).
Harvest and processing. The colourant is only extracted from the heartwood, which is first reduced tochips or powder and the colourant then extracted with alcohol. The extract may be concentrated or
stripped of solvent to give a solid product prior to sale. Specific formulations (as liquids, dispersed solids
or water-soluble forms) are prepared prior to sale to particular users at strengths appropriate for the foodproduct. No reliable published information was available on commercial extraction yields as of the mid1990s (GREEN 1995).
Cultivation. The species can be artificially propagated via both seeds and cuttings (GREEN 1995). Plantations of P. santalinus were established as early as 1964 by the Andhra Pradesh Forest Department, withresearch into vegetative propagation reported in the 1990s with encouraging results (HENRY 1994). Plantations were also established in Kerala in 1983, with three different sites planted that were said to showpromise. It was estimated that the trees would take 18-20 years to produce heartwood, but was not known
if that heartwood would possess the high value wavy grain (BABU 1992). Cultivation trials were said to be
aimed primarily at producing this higher value wood (REDDY & SRIVASUKI 1990, MOLUR & al. 1995).
SINGH (1997) gave precise instructions for commercial propagation but the extent of cultivation is notknown. The Botanic Gardens at the University of Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore carried out germination and propagation studies between 1996 and 1997. The germination rate was found to be low, in part
because many seedpods are empty, but germination could be improved by rubbing the pod or treating itwith water or sulphuric acid. The rooting success of stem cuttings was found to depend on seasonal variations and the age of the mother tree (GEETHA 1996).
VEDAVATHY (2004) calculated that if, for commercial cultivation, 500 trees are planted on one hectare, aminimum of 500 kg wood per tree, or 250 000 kg/ha, could be harvested after 25 years. At an average
anticipated market rate of INR75/kg (USD1.72/kg) an income of some INR187.5 lakhs/ha (USD430
000/ha) was expected after 25 years. Seedlings were available from an Indian NGO, HFRC at a cost of
INR8 each (USD0.18). Genetic selection for elite germplasm that can produce wavy-grained timber andimprovement of propagation techniques has been recommended (GREEN 1995, VEDAVATHY 2004).
Cultivation on a commercial scale was not known to exist as of the late 1990s (SCHIPPMAN 2001). Plans topromote cultivation in Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation(APFDC) of the Forest Department have included promoting the establishment of nurseries and plantations, although plantation-produced wood was often of low quality, and therefore more effort was needed
to improve production (ANON. 2002a). The 2004-05 Annual Plan for Tamil Nadu’s State Planning Commission included a plan to raise plantations of Red Sanders, teak and other hardwood species in order to“augment the timber resources and convert the unproductive degraded forest area into valuable timber
bearing forests” (ANON. 2004h).
India’s CITES annual reports record all exports as being of cultivated origin (artificially propagated). An
August 2004 offer for sale posted to the internet stated that 12 t of P. santalinus logs were available forsale from standing stocks of over 30 000 t of timber from farmed trees 20 years old. The timber was said
to be available with full government permissions for felling and shipping. Confirmation of the validity of thisoffer would indicate that cultivated timber was now produced in commercial quantities.
The species is cultivated in China (HAU 1997, KHIN 1995), and said to be cultivated in the Philippines (LIST& HÖRHAMMER 1977).
National market. In 1991 it was estimated that 800 kg of P. santalinus were used annually by India’s
herbal industries and Ayurvedic drug producers of Maharashtra (KHADIWALE 1998). In a market survey
carried out by TRAFFIC India in 1997, P. santalinus was found to be traded in the markets of Delhi, KolReview of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

79kata (previously Calcutta), Mumbai and Haridwar. It was commonly used by India’s herbal medicine industry and readily available. Estimates of domestic trade volumes varied widely – two traders estimated thatsales in Delhi markets (presumably for all uses) were in the order of 100-400 t; the Dabur Research Foundation estimated the annual demand from the Ayurvedic industry to be 16 t. India’s Ayurvedic Drug Manufacturer’s Association 1999 estimate of annual production of crude herbal drugs in India considered that3000 t of P. santalinus was produced per year, of which only 5% (i.e. 150 t) was used by Indian Ayurvedic
pharmacies (KHADIWALE 1998, SCHIPPMANN 2001).
Pterocarpus santalinus was one of the 162 species for which a supply and demand study was commissioned by the Department of Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy, Government of India and theWorld Health Organization (WHO). The authors predicted that demand from India’s herbal medicine industry and practitioners would be 169.9 t during 2001-2002 and 287.8 t during 2004-2005 (ANON. 2003). A
Mumbai Ayurvedic medicine manufacturer responding to a survey from the Task Force on Conservationand Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants stated that their annual demand for P. santalinus was 1.025 t. A
well-known medium-size pharmacy in south India estimated their annual demand for P. santalinus to be
2 t, which was purchased at the average price of INR55-60/kg (USD1.2/kg) from Uttar Pradesh in thenorth of India (RAMACHANDRAN 2005). The Mumbai company considered P. santalinus to have been in
short supply for approximately 18 years, another manufacturer similarly considered supplies to be limited(KHADIWALE 1998).
The price of P. santalinus wood in Indian markets was found to vary between USD0.5-3.1/kg. The price ofthe powder was considerably lower, between USD0.4-1.7/kg. This difference was believed to be due toadulteration of the powdered form as indicated by a number of traders (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). The priceduring 1999-2000 was reported to be INR50 000/t (USD1036/t) (ANON. 2003), or approximately INR50/kg(USD1.1/kg). In 2002, good quality Red Sanders was said to sell for between INR300 000-400 000/t(USD6870–9160/t) in the global market, despite a ban on exploitation and sale (ANON. 2002a).
International trade. As noted above under ‘uses’, Pterocarpus santalinus is in demand outside India as ahigh quality timber, a source of dyes and, less importantly, for other uses such as incense. Indian Customs data and CITES annual report data provide further evidence of demand, as do records of seizures of
P. santalinus both within India and in other countries. International trade primarily involves wood chips,
extract, timber (apparently illegal) and carvings.
Until recently, Indian Customs data documented the trade in three different P. santalinus product categories: chips, powder and timber (Table 1), with the greatest share of the trade reported as involving chips(see below). However, as of 1 April 2003, it appears that the trades in chips and timber are no longer being differentiated in India’s Customs data. It is important to note that different Customs codes are provided
to record the trade in the fragrant and lightly coloured Sandalwood Santalum album, occasionally also
referred to as “Sanders” or “Sanders Wood”.
Table 1. Indian Customs codes for trade in Pterocarpus santalinus
Product name
“Sander wood chips”

Customs code
12119027“Red sandal wood powder used in dyeing”

14041002 (until April 2003)
14041020 (from April 2003)
44039200“Wood in the rough, whether or not stripped ofbark or sapwood, or roughly squared; multiple
species including Red Sanders Pterocarpus santalinus”“Wood in the rough, whether or not stripped ofbark or sapwood, or roughly squared; Pterocarpus santalinus”

44039918

Notes
Customs code no longer in use forthis product as of 1 April 2003

Includes but is not specific to thisspeciesCustoms code no longer in use forthis product as of 1 April 2003

Source : Export Import Data Bank, Department of Commerce, India.

Exports of P. santalinus wood recorded during the 1970s and early 1980s ranged from a high of 444 t in
1973 to a low of 100 t in 1981 (AHMED & NAYAR 1984). In general, smaller quantities of P. santalinus werereported in trade in subsequent years, with Indian Customs data showing an annual average of 76 t of“Sander Wood” chips exported from 1996/1997-2002/2003, with a peak of 181 t in 2000/2001. As noted
above, the Customs code for chips was no longer valid as of 1 April 2003. A further average of 22 t of“Red Sandalwood Powder Used in Dyeing” was exported annually from 1997/1998-2003/2004 (Tables 25). Thirteen tonnes of powder were reported as exported from 1 April 2004-December 2004.

80

Pterocarpus santalinus

Table 2. Reported exports of Pterocarpus santalinus chips, extract and powder from India (tonnes)(1991/1992-2002/2003)*
Year
Chips
(1) (2) (3)Chips (4)Extract (4)Powder(1) (2) (4)
Total

1992/
1993
25.0

1993/
1994
-

1994/
1995
5.2+
50.0

1995/
1996
104.8

6.7

1996/
1997

1997/
1998

1998/
1999

106.8
4.1

77.0

81.6

4.7
81.7

56.8
81.8

-

55.2
st

111.5

110.9

1999/
2000

2000/
2001

2001/
2002

2002/
2003

-

181.1

46.1

40.1

13.1

21.7

47.6

24.3

18.1

94.7

21.7

228.7

70.4

58.2

st

*Financial year from April 1 -March 31 . Sources: (1) INDIA 1994; (2) LANGE & WÄCHTER 1996; (3) TRAFFIC INDIA 1998;(4) Export Import Data Bank, Department of Commerce, India.

Table 3. Total annual exports of “Sander Wood” chips recorded in Indian Customs data
(1996/1997-2003/2004)*
Year

Quantity (tonnes)

1996/1997
1997/1998
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
Total

Value INR (lac**)

106.8
77.0
81.6
181.1
46.1
40.1
532.7

314.03349.71290.90726.56181.19356.302218.69

Value USD
(x 1 000 000)
0.88
0.91
0.69
1.55
0.38
0.74
5.15

Value INR/kg
294
454
356
401
393
889
Av. = 465

* Financial year from April 1st -March 31st. **1 lac = INR100 000. Source: Export Import Data Bank, Department ofCommerce, India.

Table 4. Exports of “Sander Wood” chips recorded in Indian Customs data per import destination(tonnes) (1996/1997-2003/2004)*
Importer
China
Hong Kong
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
United Arab Emirates
TaiwanSingapore
Oman
Ethiopia
Japan
Netherlands
Nepal
Total

1996/
1997
61.8
42.0
2.0
1.0

1997/
1998
64.9
12.1

1998/
1999
12.0

2000/
2001

2001/
2002

2002/
2003

23.0
1.4

37.6
32.0

106.8

1999/
2000

77.0

81.6

30.7
94.4
100.0
8.0

9.0
20.0
8.0

15.0

0.1

181.1

9.0
46.1

0.9
7.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.1
40.1

*Financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March. Source: Export Import Data Bank, Department of Commerce, India.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

81

Table 5. Exports of “Red Sandal Wood” powder recorded in Indian Customs data per importdestination (tonnes) (1996/19972003/2004)*
ImporterFranceGermany
Hong Kong
Malaysia
United Arab Emirates
TaiwanJapan**
Oman
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Switzerland
CanadaIndonesia
Madagascar
Mauritius
Fed R of Russia
South Africa
UK
USA
Algeria
Bangladesh
China
Rep of Korea
Spain
Total

1997/
1998
0.3
0.5
2.6
1.3

1998/
1999

1999/
2000
0.9

2000/
2001
0.3

2001/
2002

2002/
2003

2003/
2004

0.8

12.3
14.3

1.1
40.0
0.6

2.7

1.6
2.7
0.03
0.02
0.03

0.4
10.9
0.3
1.1
0.1

9.4

0.5

15.0
0.5
0.3
0.03

5.0
1.7
2.2
0.6
8.8
0.01

0.01
0.02
1.1
0.2
3.5

0.1

18.1

4.4
1.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
1.3
23.3

1.7
0.01

4.7

13.1

21.7

47.6

24.3

*Financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March. **NB: From April-June 2004, one tonne was exported to Japan.
Source: Export Import Data Bank, Department of Commerce, India.

India’s CITES annual reports recorded much lower trade volumes, with the total export of approximately
22 t of ‘extracts’ and 30 m3 of timber reported for 1995, the year the species was listed in CITES Appendix
II, through 1999. India also reported the export of smaller quantities of carvings (1147 sets). No trade wasreported by India in subsequent years. It is interesting to note that India reported trade in extract, which
was not covered by the CITES listing (per Annotation # 6, see below), but did not report trade in woodchips, which was covered by the listing. All products reported as exported were reported as coming from
cultivated sources (Table 6).
European Union (EU) countries were the reported import destinations for all but 50 kg of extract recorded
in India’s CITES trade data. By contrast, EU countries appear as a relatively minor destination for extract
and Sander Wood chip exports in Customs data. Corresponding imports of P. santalinus are not recordedin CITES annual report data. This could reflect the interpretation by EU countries that as extracts were
exempt from CITES trade controls, they should not be reported in CITES data. Reported imports werelimited to 5100 kg of sawn wood reported as seized by the USA in 1999, and imports of timber reported by
China. China reported the import of 280 m3 and a further 20 m of sawn wood and timber in 1999 and
2000, reported as originating in Cambodia, Brazil and Madagascar, none of which are range States for the
species. Reported imports jumped to over 100 t in 2003, of which 96 t was reported as originating from thewild in Nepal, also not a range State, and 4.6 t as originating in India.

82

Pterocarpus santalinus

Table 6. CITES-reported trade in Pterocarpus santalinus (1995-2003)
Year

Country Country Originof Exof ImQuantity
port
port

ExportImportUnit

Term

P S Quantity

1995

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN

DK
FR
GB
IL
IT
NL

2 700
1 220
100
50
1 650
1 000

kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg

Extract
Extract
Extract
Extract
Extract
Extract

T
T
T
T
T
T

1996

IN
IN
IN

FR
GB
IT

1 500
600
2 000

kg
kg
kg

Extract
Extract
Extract

T A
T A
T A

1997

CL
DE
CL

DE
CL
DE

??
??
??

200
200

g
g

CH
CH
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
JP
MX
MX
IN
IN
KH
BR
MG
CN
NP

ES
ES
DE
GB
IT
JP
SG
MX
JP
JP
IT
US
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN

IN
IN

1998

1999

2000
2003

MX

Unit

Term

P S

g

Derivatives

E U

Chips

S W

A
A
A
A
A
A

200
Derivatives E U
Dried plants E U

33
2 850 kg
1 350 kg
4 624 kg
377 Set770 Set1

TimberSpecimens
Extract
Extract
Extract
Carvings
Carvings
Carvings

S
S
T
T
T
T
T
Q

W
W
A
A
A
A
A
W

1
2 497

Carvings
Extract

E W
T W

1
kg

IN

5 100
30
250
20
4 900
96 000

kg
m3
m3
m
kg
kg

Sawn wood
TimberSawn wood
Timber
Timber
Timber

T
T
T
T
T
T

I
W
A
W
W
W

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

It is clear that foreign markets for P. santalinus are considered important to State governments. The Government of Bidar District (Karnataka) notes that the “timber is a very good foreign exchange earner”(ANON. 2005a), for example. The Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation reported selling timberto the “global market” (ANON. 2002a) and has undertaken a programme to boost production.
Japan appears to remain an important market for timber, although there are no CITES or Customs data to
confirm this. GREEN (1995) estimated annual demand within Japan to be several hundred tonnes, the Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation having exported approximately 200 t of timber to Japan
during the late 1990s and/or early 2000s (ANON. 2002a). The seizure of over 90 t of timber en route to or
in Singapore could indicate increased demand for P. santalinus timber in that country and/or the use of
Singapore as a transit point for onward shipment. The recent rise of reported imports of timber into China
is of particular interest. Although India’s Customs data included a code for P. santalinus timber until 1 April
2003, trade was only reported under this category during 2003/2004, when 0.38 m3 of timber were reported as exported to Europe, 0.18 m3 to Germany, and 0.20 m3 to the UK.
Singapore has also emerged as a major destination for the reported export of “Sander Wood” chips. As
with timber, it is unknown whether Singapore is an end destination or an intermediary in the trade. Middle
Eastern countries, particularly the United Arab Emirates, have emerged as an important market for chips
and powder, the use of which in the Middle East is unknown. There would appear to be possible parallels
between the agarwood trade, in which both Singapore and the Middle East play a major role, and thetrade in P. santalinus. Taiwan has also been identified in Customs data as a major destination for the
trade in both powder and wood chips (over 200 t reported as exported to Taiwan from 1997/1998–
2003/2004). Trade to Europe appears to be declining, which is said to be at least in part owing to difficulReview of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

83ties in obtaining CITES permits in India. It appears that North America provides a relatively minor market,
with reported trade limited to the seizure of five tonnes of timber in 1999, and the import of 4.4 t of powderin 2003/2004. P. santalinus powder is offered for sale via the web for use in incense, with prices quoted by
US suppliers on the order of USD66-67/kg for bulk purchases.
Other than those products seized outright, it is unclear what proportion of the international trade in timberand possibly other products is illegal according to national export restrictions, which are unclear (see below).
Illegal harvest and trade. Illegal harvest and trade in Pterocarpus santalinus appears to be widespread,with numerous seizures reported both within India and in other countries (Tables 7 and 8).
Table 7. Pterocarpus santalinus seizures of more than one tonne
Date

Location of seizure

Product

1999

USA

Sawn wood

11.2002

Madavaram, Tamil Nadu

2003
01.2004

JNPT Mumbai, en routeto Colombo Sri Lanka
Kilkattalai, Tamil Nadu

24.01.2004

Chennai, Tamil Nadu

2004
02.2004
27.02.2004
03.2004

17.03.2004
30.04.2004

07.05.2004
12.2004
12.2004
13.01.2005

22.02.2005
17.03.2005
02.04.2005
10.05.2005

23.05.05

84

Quantity Seizing authority(tonnes)
5 US Government

CITES trade
statistics
26 Andhra Pradesh and Tamil ANON. 2002b
Nadu Forest Departments

Chips

1.8 JNPT Mumbai

Singapore, exported
from Mumbai
Mumbai, en route toSingapore
Singapore, exported
from Cochin
Pune

Logs

15 Tamil Nadu Forest Department
18 Indian Department of
Revenue Intelligence(DRI), Chennai
8Singapore, exported
from Mumbai
Tuticorin harbour
Sellipalayam

Logs

Singapore, exported
from Chennai
Chennai, en route to
Malaysia
Chennai

Wood pieces
and logs

28 DRI
12

Freshly cut logs,
believed to befrom the wild

SourceCITES MA
India (2003)
ANON. 2004f

NIRAJ in litt.
2004.
NIRAJ in litt.
2004.
KHIM 2005

Logs

15 DRI and the officials of
Directorate of Wildlife
Preservation, Regional
Office West, Mumbai
24 Singapore Immigration andCheckpoints Authority
16 DRI, Chennai
48 (Seizure valued at 2.54
crore)
20

KHIM 2005

Logs

20 DRI

ANON. 2004eLogs

20 DRI

ANON. 2004e

Perfume making unit
Madras (Madras Export
Processing Zone)
Raunaq Nagar, Andrha
PradeshCuddapah Andrha
PradeshTirupati, Andrha
PradeshVenkatagiri, Andrha
PradeshWood

20 Forest Department
ANON. 2005b(Seizure valued at INR
10 000 000)
Anti-poaching squad
ANON. 2005c(Seizure valued at 5 lakhs)
Forest Department
ANON. 2005dChennai, en route to
Colombo

Logs

Logs (102)
Logs (80)

ANON. 2004g

KHIM 2005
ANON. 2004j

Logs (128)

Forest Department

ANON. 2005e

Logs (80)Forest Department(Seizure valued at 2.5
lakhs)
15 DRI Chennai (Seizure
valued at 62 lakhs)

ANON. 2005f

ANON. 2005g

Pterocarpus santalinus

Illegal harvest and trade is said to have increased in Andhra Pradesh following the ban on harvests inState Forests in 1982. In Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation (FDC)
was appointed by the State Government as the main selling agent for seized timber (approximately 1800 t
were seized by the Andhra Pradesh Government from 1992-2002). The FDC was said to sort the timber
for sale onto the global (and presumably domestic) market (ANON. 2002a). In 2004 the Andhra Pradesh
Forest Department was reported to have 2381 t of confiscated P. santalinus available for internal sale
(ANON. 2004c).
There has been a rise in smuggling activity since approximately 2002 from Nellore, Chittoor and Kadapa
districts, with demand for the wood in Japan and elsewhere in East Asia being cited as the main cause.
Government forest department staff have been active in the busting of smuggling gangs (ANON. 2004d).
The Chennai unit of the Department of Revenue Intelligence seized over 73 t of P. santalinus worth
INR1.5 crore (USD343 500) and arrested four persons from April 2003-March 2004. A further 175 t valued
at over INR3.4 crore (USD778 600) was seized in six cases, with 11 people arrested, from April to December 2004. This included 20 t of logs seized in December 2004 destined for Malaysia (ANON. 2004e).
Twenty-eight tonnes of P. santalinus were seized in Mumbai en route to Singapore in February 2004, anda further 15 t seized in Pune approximately two weeks later (NIRAJ in litt. 2004). There were also three
seizures of P. santalinus in Singapore in 2004. The shipments, totalling 56 t, were all intercepted by Customs officers after arriving from India. Two out of the three shipments were concealed with other commodities including cereals and coconut husks. The shipments were claimed to be “Poha” or Indian rice,“blended black tea” and “natural slate stone” (TRAFFIC SOUTHEAST ASIA 2004). In 2005, 20 t of wood wereseized in a perfume factory in Madras (ANON. 2005b).
There were also numerous smaller seizures of Ptercarpus santalinus at various sea ports and airports,
destined for the EU, the USA (mainly powder) and some other parts of the world. These items were seized
as a result of violations of either India’s EXIM policy and/or CITES trade controls (Table 8).
Seized material may be sold by the Government (ANON. 2002a), however, under India’s Import and Export
Policy, it would appear that this may only be exported as a value added product.
Table 8. Pterocarpus santalinus seizures of less than one tonne (2000-2003)
Year
2000
2000
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2005

Location
IGI Air Cargo, New Delhi
Sea Dock, Mumbai
Courier, Delhi
IGI Air Cargo, New Delhi
Sea Port Chennai
FPO New Delhi
Airport Kolkata
FPO Kolkata
Air Cargo Mumbai
IGI Air Cargo, New Delhi
Seaport Chennai
FPO Kolkata
CFS Patparganj Delhi
CFS Patparganj Delhi
Airport Kolkata

Destination
Dubai, UAE
DurbanGermany
USA
Singapore
USA
USA
Italy
USA
Scotland
Malaysia
TaiwanAustria
Czech Republic
China

Product
PowderWood
Wooden necklaces
Wooden necklaces
Wood chips
PowderWooden beads
PowderWooden necklaces
Wood
PowderWooden necklaces
Wood articles
Logs

Quantity
107 kg
5 kg
400 pc.
20 pc.
1 kg
2 kg*
20 kg**
70 pc.
6 kg
80 pc.
30 kg
4 pc.
70 boxes
400 pc.
8 kg
102*Seizure: 5.5 kg of mixed herbs, sandalwood and red sander chips.
**Seizure: 40 kg of mixed Inula recemosa and Pterocarpus santalinus.
Source: CITES Management Authority of India (2001; 2002; 2003 & 2004).

Legislation and Regulations
Regulation of harvest, manufacture and domestic trade. The main laws governing harvesting of medicinal plants in India are the Indian Forest Act (1927), and, to a lesser extent, the Wildlife (Protection) Act(1927/1991/2002). The Indian Forest Act (1927) consolidates the law relating to forest produce, the transit
thereof and duty thereon, and empowers State Governments to regulate the transit of forest produce, e.g.
medicinal plants. The Act deals specifically with reserved, protected, and village forests. Almost all theStates and Union Territories in India have regulations regarding harvest, transit and trade in medicinal

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

85

plants. Most have established lists of species banned from harvest from forests (“Negative lists”), which
include threatened plants (Jain 2000).
The Indian Forest Act (1927) has been adopted by most of the States and is directly applicable to the Union Territories of India. The remaining States have enacted State Forest Acts of their own, which arelargely based on the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Acts of the States have been amended from time totime as required. The States have framed Rules under the Acts to protect and preserve the forest wealthof their respective States (JAIN 2000). See JAIN (2000) for a state-by-state analysis of legislation relevantto the harvest and trade of medicinal plants.
P. santalinus is classified as a “reserved tree” under the Andhra Pradesh Preservation of Private Forest
Rules, 1978. Cutting, transport and sale require permission from the Divisional Forest Officer in accordance with rules set by the State Government. According to a State Forest Officer, felling of this species inState Forests has been banned since 1982 (JAIN in litt. 2005). The Andhra Pradesh Sandal Wood and Red
Sanders Wood Transit Rules (1969) also specify that any import, export or transport of P. santalinus
wood, chips or powder must be accompanied by a permit detailing the items and quantities involved, theirsource and destination. Further, the rules require that all items in trade (including individual wood pieces,bags of powder, etc.) be marked and if relevant, sealed. There are also provisions for the marking of individual trees at the time of felling and onward chain of custody requirements. The Andhra Pradesh Red
Sanders Possession Rules require that a licence be obtained for possession of P. santalinus in excess ofa certain amount, and the manufacture and/or trade of P. santalinus products, and to keep detailed records of stocks, transactions and storage facilities. This rule does not apply to domestic use (JAIN 2000).
The government of Andhra Pradesh has considered charging P. santalinus smugglers under the Preventive Detention Act (ANON. 2004d). The Andhra Pradesh Forest Department has initiated a programme toimprove regeneration of P. santalinus and therefore harvestable stock in natural forest areas through fire
management, weed suppression and other activities (ANON. 2004i).
Possession and transport of P. santalinus timber, chips and powder similarly require permits from the District Forest Officer in the state of Tamil Nadu, but only if the quantity involved exceeds five kilogrammes.
Felling of this species is currently banned in Tamil Nadu (NIRAJ in litt. 2005). There are also restrictions
and government permissions required for the cutting of trees in hill areas, and provision made for dictating
the right to fell trees on private lands (JAIN 2000). There do not appear to be any rules specific to P. santalinus in Karnataka, but the species is subject to detailed permit requirements for transport and sale, alongwith all other “forest produce”. This includes the requirement that products be sold via auction, tender or‘tender-cum-auction’, at sanctioned prices in sales depots, or via licence at sanctioned prices. Harvest invillage forests functioning under the Panchayat system is allowed with permission of the Panchayat; harvest in district and protected forests requires the permission of the Forest Officers (JAIN 2000).
Regulation of international trade
CITES listing: Pterocarpus santalinus was included in CITES Appendix II effective 16 February 1995 following acceptance of a proposal from India. The listing was annotated to cover only “logs, wood-chips andunprocessed broken material” (Annotation #7). The annotation was modified at CITES CoP 14 (The
Hague, June 2007), as part of a Plants Committee process to clarify and harmonise annotations for medicinal plants. The revised annotation, effective 13 September 2007, “Designates logs, wood-chips, powder and extracts”.
CITES is implemented in India through a combination of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972/1991/2002 andthe Export and Import Policy (EXIM) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 andthe Customs Act, 1962. The Wildlife (Protection) Act prohibits export of a number of species, including all
six CITES Appendix I plant species native to India, of which one, Kuth Saussurea lappa, is a medicinal
plant.
Policy on trade in wildlife and wildlife products is established via the EXIM policy, which is revised periodically. The policy, as far as it concerns wildlife, is decided in consultation with the Director of Wildlife Preservation of the Government of India, who is the CITES Management Authority and oversees CITES implementation in the country. The Director has four Regional Deputy Directors and four sub-regional officesof wildlife preservation, these serving as assistant CITES Management Authorities. The EXIM policy is put
into effect via the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 and enforced
via the Customs Act (CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA in litt. 2004).
A series of specific export rules for P. santalinus has been in place since at least the early 1990s, alongside more general provisions for CITES-listed species. A government ban on exports imposed in April
1992 was modified in October 1996 to relate only to unprocessed products (ANON. 2000b). The species
was included in India’s Negative List of Exports of the Export and Import Policy in March 1996, in theory
86

Pterocarpus santalinus

banning virtually all exports of wild-harvested specimens. The listing for 1997-2002 and 2002-2007 wasannotated such that “value added products” of the wood such as extracts, dyes and musical instruments
and parts of musical instruments could be exported as long as the wood was procured from legal sources.
Clarification is required regarding whether the term ‘legal’ only applies to wood from cultivated sources, orwhether wood harvested from the wild was also allowed to be exported under this provision.
Exporters must obtain a licence, which requires that they provide certified copies of certificates of origin
issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State from which the stocks were procured,
giving details of the date of procurement and quantities. The stocks must be verified by a nominee of the
Principal Chief Conservator and a certificate of their current position also provided with the application(ANON. 2005h).
Reference is made to the fact that the export may also be subject to other conditions such as “MEP [minimum export price], quantity ceilings requirements under CITES, etc.” (ANON. 2005h). It is unclear whether
and what such restrictions might be in place. No reference is made to cultivation.
The export of large quantities of wood chips recorded in Customs data would seem to indicate that thesewere considered ‘value added’ products. It would also appear that wood seized by the government (e.g. inAndhra Pradesh) is considered as coming from ‘legal sources’. The reported shipment of approximately
200 t of seized timber from Andhra Pradesh to Japan in recent years (Anon. 2002a) calls into question
whether exports of wild-collected material are being limited to value added products.
The EXIM policy was embedded within a broader Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004-2009, thischange coming into effect on 1 September 2004. The Foreign Trade Policy aims at doubling India’s sharein global trade and expanding employment opportunities, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, andincludes a Special Agricultural Produce Scheme, promoting the export of, inter alia, minor forest produce
such as medicinal plants and their value-added products. The policy outlines that all export and import
shall be “free”, i.e. unrestricted, unless regulated under any legislation. Goods imported in accordancewith this policy may be exported in the same form without a licence, provided that there is no import orexport restriction for the items. Even goods restricted for import may be imported under Customs Bond forexport without a licence provided that the items are freely exportable. Specific note is made in the policythat this does not preclude the application of other laws (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2004).
Import and export restrictions for specific products are established via India’s ITC (HS) classifications inaccordance with the broader policy. As stipulated in Chapter 12 of the ITC (HS) classifications, the exportof plants, plant portions, their derivatives and extracts of species included in CITES Appendix I and II andobtained from the wild is generally prohibited. Further clarification is required to confirm whether this applies to wild specimens regardless of their country of origin, or to only those specimens obtained within
India. An “Export Licensing Note” appended to Chapter 12 specifies 29 plant taxa for which export is generally prohibited. This list includes Pterocarpus santalinus. An exception for both CITES species and thoselisted in the Licensing Note is made for the export of “formulations”, defined as including “products which
may contain portions/extracts of plants on the prohibited list but only in unrecognizable and physicallyinseparable form” and “value added formulations as well as herbal Ayurvedic” (Chapter 12, Export Licensing Note 3). It is not clear whether the term “recognizable” is defined per the CITES interpretation of “readily recognizable” such that if the ingredients of a particular formulation of Ayurvedic medicine are listed on
the packaging, then they are considered to be “recognizable”. The instructions include a note that statesthat “no certificate from any authorities whatsoever shall be required for their [formulations] export”, implying that no CITES permits would be required for such exports. Export Licensing Note 2 states that export
permits are required, however it is not clear if this applies only to cultivated specimens, which are allowed
to be exported (see below) or also to formulations. CITES Management Authority staff have advised that,
if Customs staff refer a shipment of formulations containing CITES-listed species to the Management Authority for clearance, then issuance of a CITES export permit will be required (AARTI in litt. 2005).
A further exception is provided for exports of wild CITES-listed species on a case by case basis for “lifesaving drugs”, which could presumably be applied to any medicinal species. However, in this case a
CITES permit would be required, with such trade only allowed on recommendation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Exports of plants produced via cultivation are allowed subject to obtaining a transit pass from the relevant
Divisional Forest Officer if the plants were cultivated in sites within forests, or a Certificate of Cultivationfrom a District Agriculture, Horticulture or Forest Officer if cultivated at sites outside forests. Export Licensing Note 2 included in this schedule states that “…However, in respect of CITES species, a CITES permitof export shall be required”. As noted above, it appears that this provision relates to all but formulations,however this requires further clarification.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

87CITES would not appear to be being implemented for P. santalinus exports from India or in countries ofimport. Over 500 t of wood chips have been exported from India since the CITES listing took effect according to India’s Customs data. However, India’s CITES annual reports do not show the export of any
wood chips, with CITES-reported exports instead limited to extract and carvings, with these ceasing in
1999. Little trade has been reported by importing Parties with the exception of China, which reported significant imports from non-range States in 2002 and 2003.
It does not appear that export restrictions on wild specimens of CITES-listed species apply to re-exports ofimported specimens, however this requires confirmation, nor does it appear that there are any specificprovisions made for controlling re-exports of CITES-listed species, other than as may be required to provethat re-exports do not involve wild-collected stock from within India. No reference could be found to an
earlier (2003) provision requiring exporters of value-added formulations made out of imported species
from the list of “prohibited plants” to provide an affidavit to Customs authorities at the time of export thatthe specimens were legally imported (NTF NO. 03/2003 31/03/2003). However, CITES Management Authority staff state that proof of import is required prior to granting re-export permission, and that they take
into account, for example, the amount of unprocessed product that would have been required on import toproduce a given export quantity (JAIN in litt. 2005). CITES Re-export Certificates are issued for such shipments (AARTI 2005).
Exports are required to be limited to the following ports: Mumbai, Nhava Sheva, Kolkata, Cochin, Delhi,
Chennai, Tuticorin, Amritsar, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
2004). It is not clear if this relates to all plants covered under this Customs classification, or only to CITESlisted species and other medicinal species for which export is prohibited.
All violations of the EXIM policy constitute an offence under the Customs Act and are dealt with by Customs officials, who alone have the responsibility to enforce compliance with CITES at border posts. Inspection of consignments by Wildlife Inspectors, co-operating with Customs staff, may also be carried out
at border crossings, but such specialist investigations are few. Enforcement of any violations detected is
the responsibility of the Customs authorities (PANDA in litt. 1998).
Conclusions
The wood and wood products of Pterocarpus santalinus continue to be in demand and traded internationally in large volumes. India’s Customs data and information on seizures indicate the trade of tens, if not
hundreds, of tonnes of wood, wood chips and powder each year, with strong markets particularly in East
Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Commercial cultivation is being actively promoted as a means of
producing timber for trade, however the percentage of products currently in international trade comingfrom cultivated stocks is unknown. Illegal felling and habitat loss are both considered threats.
It appears that, if allowed at all, legal export of wild-sourced material is limited to value-added products,
i.e. products other than timber (though apparently including wood chips). It is not clear whether timberfrom cultivated stocks is allowed to be exported. Export restrictions for timber seized by government authorities are also unclear.
CITES implementation for trade in the species appears to be virtually non-existent with regard to exports
from India and imports by other countries, with the exception of detecting and seizing timber shipments
exported illegally. The only CITES-reported trade in recent years appears to involve exports from nonrange States (and therefore to be in question), with no trade reported directly from India.
No recent status information for Pterocarpus santalinus was available at the time of this study. However,
earlier information indicated that it had been significantly reduced in the wild, to the point that it has beenclassified as Endangered. With no signs that demand has declined or that cultivation has reached sufficient levels to undercut the incentives for illegal felling, it is clear that increased action is required, bothwithin India and internationally, to reduce illegal trade, and ensure that any specimens exported legally arefrom sustainable sources.

Possible next steps
The Government of India might consider:•

Clarifying national level export controls for the species, both for specimens from wild, and for cultivatedand seized stocks;•

Encouraging greater dialogue amongst CITES Management Authority, Customs, and state Department of Forestry staff with regard to export controls and CITES implementation for the species;

88Pterocarpus santalinus•

Re-instating the Customs codes for the timber and wood chips of this species to allow for better monitoring of international trade.

Governments of countries identified as importers of P. santalinus timber, particularly Japan and China,
might consider:•Reviewing domestic markets for P. santalinus timber in order to assess the likely level of trade; and•Being more vigilant in checking for and confirming the validity of CITES permits upon presentation of
shipments for import, and to seize shipments lacking such documentation.

Countries identified as importers of P. santalinus chips, particularly Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, might also be encouraged to be more vigilant with regard to shipments offered for import.

References
AARTI, Ms., CITES Enforcement Inspector, CITES Management Authority of India (2005): pers. comm. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plants Consultant India (16.05.2005).
AHMED, M. & M. P. NAYAR (1984): Red Sanders tree (Pterocarpus santalinus LINN. f.) on the verge of depletion. Bulletin of the Botanical Survey of India 26(1-2): 142-143.
ANON. (1994): Inclusion of Pterocarpus santalinus in Appendix II. Government of India.
ANON. (2000a): Report of the Task Force on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants. Government of India Planning Commission March – 2000. http://planningcommission.nic.in/ aboutus/taskforce/tsk_medi.pdf
ANON. (2000b): Audit Report (Civil) Andrha Pradesh for the year ended 31.03.2000, pp. 137-141,
http://cag.nic.in/reports/andhra/rep_2000/civil_ch5.pdf (Viewed 23.03.2005).
ANON. (2001): Aromas tea and coffee merchants, Australia. http://www.aromas.com.au/contentscreens/
ProdServ/worldtea.html (Viewed 23.03.2005).
ANON. (2002a). The Hindu Business line Internet edition. APFDC plans to raise red sanders as a plantation crop. Financial Daily, 5 July 2002, India. http://www.blonnet.com/2002/08/05/stories/
2002080500841300.htm (Viewed 01.2004).
ANON. (2002b): The Hindu. 27.01.2002 http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/11/27/stories/200211
2703401200.htm (Viewed 23.03.2005).
ANON. (2003): Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and WHO. Demand Study for Selected Medicinal
Plants. Vol. 1. Centre for Research, Planning and Action, New Delhi, India.
ANON. (2004a): Taxa identified as possible candidates for inclusion in the review of significant trade in
specimens of appendix-II species. Prepared by TRAFFIC and the IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme for the Fourteenth Meeting of the CITES Plants Committee at Windhoek (Namibia), 1620 February 2004 (PC14 Inf. 6).
ANON. (2004b): ScienceLab.com, Inc. Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment. http://www.sciencelab.com/
page/S/PVAR/10425/SLR1362 (Viewed 23.03.2005).
ANON. (2004c): Website of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Ltd. (National Commission on Agriculture) Http://apfdc.apts.gov.in/RedSanders.htm. (Viewed 01.2004 – but unavailable
23.03.2005).
ANON. (2004d): New India Press. 01.09.2004 Move to book Red Sander smugglers under PD Act.
http://www.ipcs.org/Sep_04_nmtOrg.pdf (Viewed 23.03.2005).
ANON. (2004e): News Today NT Bureau Chennai, 26.12.2004 News Today, evening newspaper
http://newstodaynet.com/26dec/rf5.htm (Viewed 23.03.2005).
ANON. (2004f): The Hindu. 22.01.2004. 15 tonnes of red sanders seized. http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/
22/stories/2004012210420300.htm (Viewed 23.01.2004).
ANON. (2004g): The Hindu. 25.01.2004. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20040
12507790400.htm&date=2004/01/25/&prd=th& (Viewed 13.01.2005).
ANON. (2004h): State Planning Commission Chennai, Annual Plan 2004/2005.Chapter 12, pp. 354-360
http://www.tn.gov.in/spc/annualplan/apch12_1.pdf (Viewed 23.03.2005).
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

89

ANON. (2004i): Andhra Pradesh Forest Department. Status report on improvement of natural regenerationof red sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus) in Andhra Pradesh http://www.ap.nic.in/apforest/Prod/
ProdINDEX.html#RS (Viewed 23.03.2005).
ANON. (2004j): Red Sanders worth Rs 2.54 crore seized. The Times of India. 02.04.2004.
ANON. (2005a): Official Website of the District Administration of Bidar http://bidar.nic.in/forest.html (Viewed
23.03.2005).
ANON. (2005b): Indian Tax Solutions, news bulletin, Kolkata India (13.01.2005). http://www.indiantax solutions.com/spot_light9.htm (Viewed 13.01.2005).
ANON. (2005c): Red Sanders worth 5 lakhs seized. The Hindu. 23.02.2005. http://www.hindu.com/
2005/02/23/stories/2005022305750300.htm (Viewed 05.2005).
ANON. (2005d): Red Sanders Seized. The Hindu. 19.03.2005. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/
thscrip/print.pl?file=2005031907660400.htm&date=2005/03/19/&prd=th& (Viewed 05.2005).
ANON. (2005e): Red Sanders Seized. The Hindu. 04.04.2005. http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/04/stories/
2005040401980300.htm (Viewed 05.2005).
ANON. (2005f): Red Sanders worth 5 lakhs seized. The Hindu. 10.05.2005. http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/
10/stories/2005051011150400.htm (Viewed 05.2005).
ANON. (2005g): Rs. 62 Lakhs worth of Red Sanders weighing over 15 tonnes seized by DRI.
http://www.indiantaxsolutions.com/spot_light9.htm (Viewed 05.2005).
ANON. (2005h): India trade promotion organisation (Trade Portal of India). http://www.tradeportalofindia.
com/usrdata/itpoadmin/tradeinformation/itpo/UploadData/I202/chapter44.htm (Viewed 03.2005).
BABU, N.V. (1992): Introduction of Red Sanders In Kerala. Indian Forester 118(2):109-111.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2001): CITES Annual Report 2000. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2002): CITES Annual Report 2001. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2003): CITES Annual Report 2002. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): CITES Annual Report 2003. Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plants Consultant India.
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (2004): Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. Ministry of Commerce& Industry, Government of India, New Delhi, India. http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/ (Viewed 16.01.2005).
EXPORT IMPORT DATA BANK, Department of Commerce, Government of India. http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/(Viewed 03.01.2005).
GEETHA, K. R. (1996): Studies of Pterocarpus santalinus (Red sandalwood). BGCNews 2(7): 41-43.
http://www.bgci.org.uk/botanic_gardens/Uni_Agricultural_science_Bangalore_India.html (Viewed
04.01.2005).
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1994): CITES Proposal. Inclusion of Pterocarpus santalinus in Appendix II of theConvention.
GREEN, C. L. (1995): Natural colorants and dye stuff. - 116 pp., FAO, Rome, Italy (Non-wood forest products 4).
GUAR, R. D. (1994): in litt. to TRAFFIC India.
HAU CHI-HANG (1997): A general evaluation of Hong Kong's trade [in] medicinal plants listed in CITES.
Second draft report. - 41 pp., 10 photos, TRAFFIC East Asia. Unpublished report, Hong Kong.
HENRY, A. N. (1994): in litt. to IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge, UK.
HENRY, L., TRAFFIC North America (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
INTERNATIONAL LEGUME DATABASE & INFORMATION SERVICE (2003): http://www.ildis.org/LegumeWeb/6.00/
taxa/16068.shtml. [reference cited in UNEP-WCMC 2004]

90

Pterocarpus santalinus

IUCN (2006): 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org (Downloaded on
31.10.2006).
IUCN & TRAFFIC (Eds.) (1994): Analyses of proposals to amend the CITES Appendices. - viii+266 pp.,
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
JAIN, A.K. (2000): Regulation of Collection, Transit and Trade of Medicinal Plants and other Non-Timber
Forest Produce in India – A compendium. xxix +529. TRAFFIC-India/WWF India, New Delhi, India.
JAIN, S. K. & R. R. RAO (Eds.) (1983): An assessment of threatened plants of India. Proceedings of theseminar held at Dehra Dun, 14-17.09.1981. - xiii+334 pp., Botanical Survey of India, Dept. Environment, Howrah, India.
JAIN, P., Medicinal Plant Consultant India (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (05.2005).
KHADIWALE, V. (1998): Demand of medicinal plants and planning for cultivation. [reference cited in ANON.
2000a]
KHAN, A.A. (1994): in litt. to IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge, UK.
KHIM, Ong A Senior Plant Health Officer Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (2005): in litt. to TRAFFICSoutheast Asia.
KHIN MAUNG LWIN (1995): Non-wood forest products in Myanmar. In: DURST, P.B. & A. BISHOP (Eds.): Beyond timber. Social, economic and cultural dimensions of non-wood forest products in Asia andthe Pacific. pp. 227-234, FAO Regional Office Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand (RAP Publication 1995/13).
KIYONO, H., TRAFFIC Japan (2005): in litt. to S. Lee TRAFFIC East Asia.
KUMAR, S. & SANE, P.V. (2003): Legumes of South Asia, a check-list. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.
[reference cited in UNEP-WCMC 2004]
LANGE, D., University of Landau, Germany (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
LANGE, D. & U. SCHIPPMANN (1999): Checklist of medicinal and aromatic plants and their trade names covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97. Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Unpublished report,
Bonn, Germany.
LANGE, D. & M. WÄCHTER (1996): Untersuchung der Gefährdung von Pflanzenarten durch den internationalen Heilpflanzenhandel mit Indien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Handels zwischen
Indien und Deutschland. - 101 pp., Annexes, Unpublished report, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
LIST, P.H. & HÖRHAMMER (1977): Hagers Handbuch der pharmazeutischen Praxis, 4. ed., volume 6A. 1024pp.; Berlin, Heidelberg, New York (Springer Verlag), USA.
LOHI DAS, T. & T. DAYANAND (1984): Some distinguishing characteristics between wavy-grained andstraight-grained trees of Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus LINN.f.). Indian Journal of Forestry
7(1): 69-71.
MOLUR, S., D. K. VED, V. TANDON, N. NAMBOODIRI & S. WALKER (Eds.) (1995): Conservation assessmentand management plan (CAMP) for selected species of medicinal plants of southern India. - 108
pp., Zoo Outreach Organisation/CBSG India, s.loc.
NIRAJ, S.K. Assistant Management Authority-CITES, (2004): in litt. to Teresa Mulliken, TRAFFIC International (22.02.2004).
OLDFIELD, S.O., C. LUSTY & A. MACKINVEN. (1998): The world list of threatened trees. World Conservation
Press, Cambridge, UK. 650 pp.
PANDA, S. (1998): in litt. to TRAFFIC India (09.11.1998).
RAMACHANDRAN, K.V., Senior Manager (Materials), Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal, India (2005): in litt. to P.
Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant, TRAFFIC International (10.01.2005).
RAO, S.P & A. J.S. RAJU (2002): Pollination ecology of the Red Sanders Pterocarpus santalinus (Fabaceae), an endemic and endangered tree species. Current Science 83(9). 10.11.2002.
RAWAT, G.S. DESAI, A.J., SOMANATHAN, H., WIKRAMANYAKE, E.D. (2001): Central Deccan Plateau dry deciduous forests (IM0201) World Wildlife Fund. http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/ terrestrial/im/im0201_full.html

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

91

REDDY, K.K. & SRIVASUKI, K.P. (1992): Biotechnical approach for tree improvement in Red Sanders. Indian
Forester 18(1): 15-20.
RICHTER, H.G. & DALLWITZ, M.J. (2002): Commercial timbers: descriptions, illustrations, identification, andinformation retrieval. In English, French, German, and Spanish. Version: 18.10.2002. [reference
cited in UNEP-WCMC 2004]
ROUBIK, D.W. (1995): Pollination of Cultivated Plants in the Tropics. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin,
Rome, p. 118. [reference cited in RAO & RAJU 2002]
SCHIPPMANN, U. (2001): Medicinal Plants Significant Trade Study CITES project S-109; BfN Skripten 39.
SINGH, P.M. (1997): Propagation methods for Indian medicinal plants of conservation concern. Amruth
1(11): 1-30.
TRAFFIC EAST ASIA-JAPAN (1994 ): in litt. to the IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge, UK.
TRAFFIC INDIA (1998): Medicinal plants significant trade study. CITES project (S 109). India country report. - 103 pp., unpublished report, New Delhi, India.
TRAFFIC SOUTHEAST ASIA (2004): Singapore's wildlife trade seizures highlight regional enforcement challenges. www.traffic.org/news/challenges.htm.
UNEP-WCMC (2004): Significant Trade in Plants – Selection of New Species. PC 14 Doc. 9.3
VEDAVATHY, S. (2004): Cultivation of endemic Red Sanders for International trade. Natural Product Radiance Vol.3, March-April 2004, pp. 83-84. http://www.niscom.res.in/ScienceCommuni
cation/ResearchJournals/rejour/npr/npr2k4/npr_apr04.asp (Viewed 04.01.2005).
WALTER, K.S. & H.J. GILLETT (Eds.) (1998): 1997 IUCN Red List of threatened plants. - lxii+862 pp., IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.

92

Rauvolfia serpentina

Rauvolfia serpentina
Taxonomy

Rauvolfia serpentina (L.) BENTH. ex KURZ (family Apocynaceae)

Synonyms

Ophioxylon salutiferum SALISB., Ophioxylon obversum MIQ., Ophioxylon
serpentinum L., Rauvolfia obversa (MIQ.) BAILL., Rauvolfia trifoliata (GAERTN.) BAILL.

Trade names

Araba (mun), Arachontita (ass), Arbre aux serpents (fre), Asrel (urd), Bomayaza (bur)Chandmaruwa (nep), Chandra (ben), Chandra (hin), Chandra (Mumbai), Chandrabhaga(hin), Chandrabhoya (hin), Chhota Chand (hin), Chandrika (India), Chivan Amelpodi (tam),
Chivanamelpodi (tam), Chovannamilpori (tam), Chuvannavilpori (mal), Chuvannavilpuri(mal), Darujikipota (mun), Harkaya (mar), Harki (mar), Huring (mun), Indische Schlangenwurzel (ger), Jowansu (mik), Lotu-chand (hin), Makalmaran (Delhil), Paataala Garuda(tel), Paataalagani (tel), Patala-agandhi (tel), Patalagandhi (kan), Patalgarur (ori),
Phulchiso (nep), Racine de serpentine (fre), Radix Rauwolfiae (pha), Rauwolfia (fre),Rauwolfia root (eng), Rauwolfiae radix (pha), Rauwolfiawurzel (ger), Ra-yom (tha), Sanochado (ori), Sarpaganda (fre), Sarpagandha (nep), Sarpagandha (san), Sarpagandhi(kan), Sarpaganthi (tam), Sarpaghanda (san), Schlangenholz (ger), Segno serpentino(ita), Serpentine root (eng), Serpentine wood (eng), Shegenmu (chi), Shivanabhiballi(kan), Simjenga (mun), Snakewood (eng), Supurolid (mun), Sutranavi (kan), Suvapavalporiyan (mal), Todong-pait-parao (kha) (FAO 2002, IUCN NEPAL 2004, JAICHAGUN in litt.
2006, LANGE & SCHIPPMANN 1999, MANANDHAR 2002).

Description. An erect, small evergreen perennial, semi-shrub, usually 15-45 cm, sometimes up to 90 cm
tall. Stems usually unbranched and slender, when broken exude a pale, sticky sap. Root, nearly vertical, ataproot system, tuberous, up to 50 cm long, sometimes irregularly nodular, developing several smaller,
fibrous side roots, grayish-yellow externally, pale-yellow within; acrid in odour when fresh, odourless when
dried, very bitter. The root bark, which constitutes 40-60% of the whole root, is rich in 'reserpine', an alkaloid. Leaves grouped near stem apex in whorls of 3-5, elliptical lanceolate or obovate, pointed, dark-green
on the upper surface and pale-green on the underside, 7.5-20 cm. Inflorescence generally a terminal,
densely flowered cyme. Flowers in long-stalked cluster, tubular, five lobed, 1-3 cm long, vary in colour
from white over pinkish to red, with red pedicel and calyx. Flowering from February to October. Fruit eggshaped with pointed ends, purplish black when ripe (EVERETT 1981-1982, HENDRIAN 1997, MORTON 1977).
Additional details on the morphology of the species and particularly the root can be found in WHO (1990).
Distribution. Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Indonesia, India, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan (?), Sri Lanka, Thailand, Viet Nam.
The species is wide ranging in Asia. In China it is found in the provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan,and Yunnan (MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDENS 1996). It is found in almost all parts of India, up to an altitude
of about 1000 m. It is more common in submontane regions of the Himalayas and in lower ranges of theEastern and Western Ghats, also in the states of Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Sikkim, Assam, Kerala,
Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Bengal, Bihar and Maharashtra and the Andaman Islands (JAIN 1996). The species
occurs in Indonesia on Kalimantan, Java (Purwakarta, Cirebon, Pekalongan, Tegal, Semarang, Rembang, Jepara, Pasuruan, Kediri, Madiun and Ngawi), Sumatra and the Lesser Sunda Islands(BALAKRISHNA 1993a, HARA & al. 1978-1982, HENDRIAN 1997, HOOKER 1872, JAIN & RAO 1983, SHRESTHA
1988, SUVATTI 1978, WIART 2000). In the northern part of Central Java the species is usually found understands of Tectona grandis (HENDRIAN 1997). The occurence of R. serpentina in Lao PDR is reported by
WICHTL (1997). It grows well and sometimes abundantly in natural moist deciduous forest in Myanmar,
where it occurs in six of its 14 regions: the states of Kayah, Kayin and Shan and the divisions of Sagaing,
Bago and Manadalay (ZAW in litt. 2005). It occurs widely in the tropical regions of eastern and central Nepal up to 1150 m and is associated with Shorea robusta (Sal) forests as an understorey species (AMATYA
in litt. 2005). According to AKHTER (2005), the species does not occur in Pakistan. In Thailand it is foundin evergreen forest or open areas up to 800 m altitude in the north (Chiang Mai, Lampang, Lamphun, Nan,Phitsanulok, Phrae, Tak), northeast (Loei, Nong Khai, Phetchabun), southwest (Kanchanaburi, Khiri Knan,
Prachuap), central (Bangkok, Saraburi) and southeast (Chanthburi, Chon Buri, Surat Thani)(SANKASUBUAN in litt. 2005).
Generally, R. serpentina favours humus-rich soils with a pH of 4 and where annual rainfall reaches at least
2500 mm. It occurs in open areas, well-drained rainforests and secondary thickets and deciduous forests
up to 2100 m.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

93

Population status and threats. The species is not included in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2006).
In India, the species was considered to be ‘endangered’ in southern (Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu) andcentral India. Three Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshops concluded that
populations have declined more than 50% from 1985-1995 owing to loss of habitat and over-collection forthe medicinal plant trade (MOLUR & al. 1995, MOLUR & WALKER 1998). ANSARI (1993) stated that genetic
erosion has affected the species greatly and populations left in India have a very poor alkaloid content.
Another CAMP workshop was held in Bhopal in 1998 when the species was assessed as Critically Endangered1994 in Maharashtra owing to the same threats. The observed decline was, however, more than
80% from 1988-1998 (PATNAIK 1999). A CAMP workshop in July 2003 assessed the species as CriticallyEndangered2001 in Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra and Vulnerable2001 in Madhya
Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal, Assam and Meghalaya. Major threats were harvest for medicinal use and trade (VED & al. 2003). BALAKRISHNA (1993b) and JAIN & RAO (1983) reported the species tobe ‘vulnerable’ in the Indian states of Kerala, Orissa and Tamil Nadu. Participants during a workshop on‘Endangered Medicinal Plant Species in Himachal Pradesh’ described it as “endangered” (ANON. 2002a).
AYENSU (1996) considers it to be threatened in India.
SIDDIQUE & al. (2004) consider the species to be “endangered” in the Barind Tract of Bangladesh. The
species has been reported as being “vulnerable” in Myanmar in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants
Database, however, according to ZAW (in litt. 2005), populations are still abundant in the moist forest areas where it occurs, but could be declining in areas where habitat is degraded. AUNG DIN (2005) considered the major threat to be habitat degradation and change of land use. The species was assessed as
Critically Endangered2001 in Nepal during a 2001 CAMP workshop (BHATTARAI & al. 2002), where it has“already approached extinction in most areas of the country”, according to BHATTARAI (1997). Here, overharvesting, burning to create areas for livestock grazing, shifting cultivation and land encroachment for
cultivation are the major threats (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Following consultation with representatives from the
CITES Scientific Authority, Nepal’s CITES Management Authority stated that they considered the species
to be “threatened in the wild” in Nepal (SHARMA in litt. 2006). The status has been described as “indeterminate” in Sri Lanka (WIJESINGHE & al. 1990) and as “endangered” in Viet Nam (PHAN THUC VAT 1996).
Medicinal uses
Plant parts used for medicinal purposes: Roots.
Rauvolfia serpentina contains over 60 indole alkaloids, the most significant being rescinamine, doserpidine, reserpinine, serpinine, serpentinine, ajmaline, ajmalicine, rauvolfinine and yohimbine. The principal
hypertensive alkaloids are reserpine and rescinnamine (MONACHINO 1954, NATIONAL FORMULARY BOARD,AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION 1975). The alkaloid content varies from 1.4-3%, depending on
location, season and soil conditions (FAROOQI & SREERAMU 2001). The drug ‘Rauvolfia’ consists of the airdried roots of R. serpentina (SHELDON & al. 1997).
In India, R. serpentina has been employed for centuries in the treatment of various central nervous disorders, including anxiety states, maniacal behaviour associated with psychosis, schizophrenia, insanity,
insomnia, and epilepsy. Extracts of the roots are valued for the treatment of intestinal disorders and also
as an anthelmintic. Mixed with other plant extracts, they have been used in the treatment of cholera, colic
and fever (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1989). Twelve herbal formulations using Rauvolfia serpentina were
manufactured in India in the late 1990s (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). The species is also used by traditional
healers to treat snake and dog bites (OUDHIA 2003).
In Nepal, traditional healers use the roots of R. serpentina to treat hypertension, fever, mental disorders,
depression and memory loss. The species is used as "Sarpagandha" in Sarpagandhadi churana, Sarpagandhadi yog, as “Srpagandhadi bati” by Singhgadarbar Vaidya Khana, as "Tensarin" by Gorkha Ayurveda, and as "Nindra karak" by Arogya Bhawan (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Very small quantities are usuallyused. In addition, the juice of the root is applied in hypnosis and to treat dysentery and fever (MANANDHAR
2002). R. serpentina is used by traditional healers in Bangladesh to relieve stomach ache and to expel
thread worms (SIDDIQUE & al. 2004). In Myanmar, it is used in indigenous medicines, to treat hypertension, as a sedative, and for treatment of intestinal disorders (AUNG DIN 2005). Other species are not substituted for R. serpentina (ZAW in litt. 2005). The species is also used in traditional medicine in Thailand(TRAFFIC SOUTHEAST ASIA in litt. 2005).
In traditional East Asian medicine, R. serpentina roots are used “to remove heat, reduce liver wind, promote subsidence of swelling and lower blood pressure” (HAU 1997). The term Radix Rauvolfiae is referred
to in the Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Ordinance (Chapter 549, 06/08/1999) as the root of either R. verticillata (LOUR.) BAILL. or R. serpentina. However, during a TRAFFIC East Asia trade survey in Hong Kongin 1997, none of the traders interviewed knew about the drug ‘Rauvolfia’ (HAU 1997).
94

Rauvolfia serpentina

In western medicine, the alkaloid reserpine, first isolated from Rauvolfia roots in the early 1950s, quickly
became important in the treatment of hypertension and mental illnesses through its effect as a tranquillizer(SHELDON & al. 1997). Use has decreased in Europe owing to side effects (FROHNE 1994, WICHTL 1997),
with sales of reserpine-based pharmaceuticals having declined in Germany, where smaller amounts of
R. serpentina continue to be used in phyto-pharmaceutical preparations (LANGE 2005). According to information available from the US National Library of Medicine, it has been used as an antihypertensive andan antipsychotic, but its adverse effects limit its clinical use (CHEMIDPLUS 2005). It is considered a carcinogen (ANON 2002b).
Other uses. The plant has no ornamental potential (EVERETT 1981-1982). According to local healers in
the Terai, Nepal, rural people plant R. serpentina in their gardens because it is believed to keep snakes
away (AMATYA in litt. 2005). The species is also planted to ward off snakes in rural India (OUDHIA 2003).
Similar species/substitutes. Reserpine is also extracted from three other species: R. tetraphylla fromtropical America, R. vomitoria from Africa and R. confertiflora from Madagascar (ANON. 2005a, EVERETT
1981-1982, SHELDON & al. 1997). R. confertiflora is said to have already disappeared due to indiscriminate
collection (RASOANAIVO 1990). HAU (1997) reports that R. latifrons, R. verticillata and R. yunnanensis arealso used in Chinese medicines. Further research is required to determine whether reserpines are also
now being produced via cell culture.
Harvest and processing. According to information contained within the Tenth Report on Carcinogens(ANON. 2002b), there was no known commercial production of synthetic reserpine, with the chemical extracted from the roots of R. serpentina with alcohols or aqueous acid and then purified.
Generally, roots and sometimes leaves are harvested. Roots can be harvested when the plants are
15 months old, although the yield is low and it is commonly suggested that plants should be harvested
only after three to four years, when they are mature (AMATYA in litt. 2005, SHELDON & al. 1997). Up to 3040% of the harvest in India is eventually lost due to spoilage (CHATTERJEE 2004).
In Myanmar, the species is collected and traded mainly for domestic use in indigenous medicines. Local
people collect the species and sell it to small traders in the nearest towns, who distribute the plants tomajor traders in big cities such as Yangon and Mandalay (ZAW in litt. 2005). Wholesalers also have agents
who collect the species in local areas, possibly buying from village collectors (AUNG DIN 2005). The roots
are usually dried, losing approximately two-thirds of their weight, although indigenous healers often prefer
to use fresh roots (AUNG DIN 2005). Some local collectors sell directly to cottage medicine industries. Onlya small number of individuals and households are believed to be involved in the collection of R. serpentina, but because collection is not specialised, this number is hard to estimate. The species is collected
opportunistically, at the same time as people harvest other forest products for local use. Despite existing
market demand, no special efforts are made to collect R. serpentina (ZAW in litt. 2005). From 2001 to 2004
the Forest Department allowed approximately 68 t to be harvested (fresh weight) for domestic use.
In Nepal, the preferred harvesting season is winter, after flowering, when the plants shed their leaves andthe alkaloid content is highest (AMATYA in litt. 2005). They are dug out carefully from the sub-soil, as theroot bark needs to be kept intact because it contains 40-60% of the alkaloid found in the entire root. Primary processing such as cleaning and sun drying is performed by the collectors. R. serpentina is tradedunder the names “Sarpagandha” and “Chandmaruwa”. Although there is no physical difference between
the two, under the Forest Regulation (1995), harvesters are charged a forest royalty fee of NPR10/kg(USD0.14/kg) for Chandmaruwa, in contrast to NPR50/kg (USD0.7/kg) for Sarpagandha, the export ofwhich is also prohibited in raw form. As a result, it is expected that R. serpentina is more commonly harvested and sold under the name Chandmaruwa, however forestry records show very little harvest under
this name (and none under Sarpagandha). According to forest royalty records, no Chandmaruwa washarvested from 1999/2000-2002/2003, and only 52.5 kg in 2003/2004. Regional traders dry and repack
the roots and exporters grade the roots to ensure they are free from adulteration. Manufacturers usuallyassess the quality of the material by testing samples provided by exporters for the active ingredient(AMATYA in litt. 2005).
Harvest in Thailand is said to mainly involve villagers who collect the species as an opportunistic activity,with companies involved in internal trade and export (SANKASUBUAN in litt. 2005). Collection takes place
during the rainy season, in May-June, with collectors drying the roots prior to sale. Exporters only buy theroot once a year, from middlemen, during the rainy season (JAICHAGUN 2005). It does not appear that
other species with similar properties are mixed with or substituted for R. serpentina (SANKASUBUAN in litt.
2005).
AYENSU (1996) also refers to collection within Lao PDR and Viet Nam.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

95

Cultivation. Efforts to domesticate the species were said in the 1990s to have only been partially successful, as seed germination is low and alkaloid content varies. Better results have been achieved when
propagating via rootstock cuttings, but here the alkaloid content proved to be lower than in plants produced from seed (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1989, SAMANT & al. 1998, SHELDON & al. 1997). Efforts have also
been made to propagate plants from tissue culture (CHANDEL & SHARMA 1996) and to produce the alkaloid
in cell suspension cultures (HERMAN 1989). Cultivation methods have been steadily improving over theyears (IUCN & TRAFFIC 1989, SINGH 1997).
In India, TRAFFIC INDIA (1998) noted that various forest departments had undertaken cultivation projects,
but observed that cultivation had not been taken up commercially. This conflicts with AYENSU (1996), whostated that the species was commercially cultivated in India. Under irrigated conditions, optimum yield isachieved only after two to three years of cultivation from seed. R. serpentina has been selected for in situ
and ex situ propagation in Chhattisgarh, and was considered a top priority species for development of ex
situ cultivation in Himachal Pradesh (ANON. 2002a). The economic size for commercial cultivation of
R. serpentina and other root yielding medicinal plants in India is said to be 25-30 ha (CHATTERJEE 2004).
According to RAJKARNIKAR & al. (2000), the species was not cultivated on a commercial scale in Nepal.
However, germplasm has been conserved and propagated and experimental cultivation has been conducted in the past on two farms owned by the government, in Bara and Makwanpur. Seeds were planted
in nurseries and after two months the seedlings were transplanted in the fields. Seeds directly sown in thefields did not succeed and here regeneration after collection only occured through remnants of roots left
behind. More recently, in these and other Nepali regions, Kerkha (Jhapa), Dhakeri (Banke) and Shripur(Kailali), cultivation experiments were conducted on areas of three hectares or less with an average yieldof 2000-2500 kg fresh root per hectare (AMATYA in litt. 2005). AYENSU (1996) has stated that R. serpentina
is in commercial cultivation in Nepal.
Mature seeds are usually collected from September onwards, ideally at an interval of 10-12 days. Only a
few fruits ripen at a time and they are dispersed if not immediately collected. The collected fresh seeds
should be sown immediately to retain viability and to obtain a high germination rate (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
Seeds are usually collected for commercial propagation. Shoots, root stumps and root cuttings are alternative sources for artificial propagation and natural regeneration occurs through remains of roots left behind in the soil (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
According to JARYAL (2001) seeds should be less than one year old when planted, but germination is still
only 10-50%. The species is irrigated for 18 months and the yield per hectare is around 30-40 kg seed and2-2.25 t of dried roots.
In Bangladesh, in vitro propagation has been carried out with the aim of cultivating the species withinagroforestry systems (ROY & HOSSAIN 1999). In China, R. serpentina has been cultivated in the provincesof Guangdong, Hainan, Guangxi, and Guizhou (HAU 1997). WICHTL (1997) reported on commercial cultivation also taking place in Malaysia. Some small-scale trial plantations for local medicinal supply have been
established in Myanmar (ZAW in litt. 2005). According to SANKASUBUAN (in litt. 2005), cultivation has beenstudied in Thailand. AYENSU (1996) refered to commercial cultivation in Viet Nam.
National market. A research institute in India reported that during the years 1984-1990 only 1.6 t of
R. serpentina roots were harvested annually for local industrial production (HENDRIAN 1997). At the time ofits inclusion in Appendix II (1989), annual domestic demand in India was estimated to be 50 t of driedroots while only 30 t were available (IUCN & TRAFFIC 1989). According to a 1995 study, 21 t of roots
were required to meet demand in Kerala alone (AFC 1995). According to data provided by the Ayurvedic
Drug Manufacturers Association in Mumbai, India produced 800 t of Rauvolfia crude drugs in 1999, of
which only 20% (160 t) was used by India’s Ayurvedic industry (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PLANNING
COMMISSION 2000).
During the late 1990s, the Dabur Research Foundation estimated the annual demand of the Ayurvedic
industry to be 11 t while an Indian trade organization assessed the overall Indian demand as 60 t per year
(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). A supply and demand study including R. serpentina commissioned by the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy, the Indian Government and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated demand for 2001-2002 as 423.6 t and for 2004-2005 as 588.7 t, much higher
than earlier estimates. The price during 1999-2000 was reported to be INR150 000/t (USD3435/t) (ANON.
2001-2002). This would appear to contradict the contention in India’s 1989 CITES proposal for this species that “most of the produce is exported because only a small fraction is used by Indian pharmaceuticalfirms” (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1989). DHAWAN (in litt. 2005) indicates widespread use of the species in India by phyto-pharmaceutical companies.

96

Rauvolfia serpentina

During a TRAFFIC India market survey in 1997 the species was found to be commonly traded in the markets of Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Haridwar and Amritsar. It was among the most significantly traded medicinal plants and was readily available. At the Delhi market, the species was said to come mainly from
Uttaranchal, but with substantial quantities also imported from Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan (TRAFFICINDIA 1998). According to GUPTA (in litt. 2005), the main markets where the species is sold are Amritsar,
Delhi, Kolkata (previously Calcutta) and Mumbai, with roots sold at INR80-90/kg (USD1.8-2.1/kg) dry
weight. These markets in turn supply smaller markets within India. A well-known, medium-sized pharmacy
in south India whose annual demand for R. serpentina was 300 kg purchased the roots from Delhi at an
average price of INR120-125/kg (USD2.7-2.9/kg) (RAMACHANDRAN in litt. 2005).
Harvest within Myanmar is said to be primarily to meet domestic demand, although CITES trade data andother information indicate that harvest for export is also undertaken. The market price in a major local
market was said to be about MMK850/kg (USD136/kg) (ZAW 2005), a figure that seems unlikely whencompared with prices in other countries.
International trade. The development of reserpine-based pharmaceuticals in the 1950s led to increasing
demand for R. serpentina, which was mainly supplied by India (SHELDON & al. 1997), with this country at
one time having a monopoly on supplies of the crude drug for the world market (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
1989). The global demand for R. serpentina was estimated in the early 1980s to be 100-150 t annually.
This appears to have grown significantly, with domestic demand in India alone estimated at over 400 t in
2000/2001 (ANON. 2001-2002). Prior to inclusion of R. serpentina in CITES Appendix II, most of the drugs
used in the USA and Europe originated from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1989). A 1993 FAO study estimated that 400-500 t of roots were harvested annually, mainly in India, Thailand, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (IQBAL 1993). Traders in the Delhi markets
stated in the late 1990s that although the species was mainly supplied from Uttaranchal, substantial quantities were also imported from Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998).
CITES annual report data show trade in both roots and extract (Tables 1 and 6).
Table 1. CITES-reported trade of Rauvolfia serpentina roots (1999-2003; in kg)
Year

Importer

Exporter

OriginImports
reported

1999

IN

MM

1999

DE

TH

2000

AU

DE

2000

CH

IN

2000

DE

TH

9 011

9 500

W

2001

DE

TH

4 020

4 020

W

2002

DE

TH

1 740

1 740

W

7 114
(seized)Exports
reported
14 340Purpose

Source

T

U

3 300
TH

A

11

T

W

100

T

A

2002

DE

IN

2003

CH

DE

TH

125
170

T

W

2003

US

DE

TH

10

T

W

2003

ZA

DE

TH

5

T

W

2003

ZA

DE

TH

15

T

A

Total

14 896A

33 211

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

CITES data show the reported export of approximately 33 t of R. serpentina roots from 1999-2003, dominated by exports from Myanmar and Thailand. Importing Parties showed trade in less than half thatamount. Of these, seven tonnes were reported as seized on import by the Government of India, originating from Myanmar; exports from Myanmar to India reported for the same year show the trade of 14 t. Thailand’s CITES Management Authority reports the further export of roots for 2002-2005: in 2002, 186 kg
exported to the USA; 2003, 2370 kg exported to Germany; 2004, 3050 kg exported to Germany; 2005,
3030 kg exported to Germany (JAICHAGUN in litt. 2006, SANKASUBUAN in litt. 2005).
Customs data for India include two specific codes for imports and exports of Rauvolfia products (Table 2),
with data compiled for the fiscal year running from 1 April to 31 March. Both imports and (re) exports ofReview of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

97roots and processed products are recorded in Customs data, which can therefore be compared with
CITES annual report data.
Table 2. Indian Customs codes for trade in Rauvolfia spp.
Product name“Serpentina roots”

Customs code
12112005 (until April 2003)
12119044 (after April 2003)“Formulations of reserpine & other 30044015 (until April 2003, thenRauvolfia alkaloids in tablets”
discontinued)

Notes
Serpentina roots (Rauvolfia serpentina andother species of rauvolfias) (ANON. 2005b)
Includes reserpines produced from Rauvolfia
species in addition to R. serpentina

Source: Export Import Data Bank, Department of Commerce, India.

According to TRAFFIC INDIA (1998), India banned the export of raw material in the 1960s with the resultthat export of alkaloids extracted from the roots increased. The ban on raw material exports would notappear to be supported by Customs data, however, unless these data reflect exports of R. serpentina
previously imported from other countries, i.e. re-exports, or involve species other than R. serpentina thatwere imported into and/or cultivated in India prior to (re-)export. According to Customs data, India exported over 100 t of “Serpentina roots,” from 1971/1972-2003/2004. Approximately 29 t were reported asexported from 1999/2000-2003/2004 (Tables 3 and 4), with 14 t exported in 2003/2004 alone. This trade
has not been captured in India’s CITES data or the data of importing Parties. Based on what is known of
the trade, it seems likely that the record of exports from India to Nepal in 2001/2002 is in error, and wasactually an import; an identical quantity is recorded in India’s import data (Table 5).
Table 3. Export of “Serpentina” roots recorded in India’s Customs data (1971-2004; t)
1971/721975/76

1976/771980/81

1981/82

1991/92

1992/93

1995/96

1999/
2000

2001/02

2003/04

Total: 3.6

Total: 53.3

26.3

0.3

0.1

3.9

9.0

6.0

14.2

Annualaverage:
0.7

Annualaverage:
10.6

Sources: LANGE & WÄCHTER (1996). Quantities for 1963-68 from GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1989). Quantities for 1995/96
from TRAFFIC INDIA (1998), for 1999-2004 from Export Import Data Bank, Department of Commerce, India.

Table 4. Export of “Serpentina roots”
recorded in India’s Customs
data (1999/2000-2003/2004)
Year
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04

Total

Country of Import

Quantity
(kg)

Italy
UK
Nepal
KuwaitUnited Arab Emirates

3 120
5 900
6 000
1 000
13 200Year
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04

29 220Source: Export Import Data Bank, Departmentof Commerce, India.

98

Table 5. Import of “Serpentina roots”
into India (1999/2000-2003/2004)

Total

Country of Export
MyanmarSingapore
Myanmar
Myanmar
Nepal
MyanmarBelgium
Congo DR
Kenya
Myanmar

Quantity (t)
19.8
6.0
6.0
19.3
6.0
36.1
1.0
35.3
12.1
70.4
212.0

Source: Export Import Data Bank, Departmentof Commerce, India.

Rauvolfia serpentina

Table 6. CITES-reported trade of Rauvolfia serpentina extract(1999-2003)
Year

Importer Exporter(origin)

Exports reported (g)Purpose

Source

1998

RU

IN

600

T

A

1998

SG

IN

1 830

T

A

1998

US

IN

45

T

A

1999

BG

IN

60

T

W

1999

CY

IN

150

T

W

1999

RU

IN

2 175

T

W

1999

RU

IN

1 015

T

W

1999

SY

IN

5 200

T

W

1999

US

IN

500

T

W

2000

RU

IN

2 235

T

A

2003

ZA

DE (TH)

20 000

T

A

Total

33 810Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

Table 7. Export of “Formulation of reserpineand other Rauvolfia alkaloids in tabletsetc.” recorded in India’s Customs data
(1999/2000-2003/2004)
Year
1999/2000

2000/2001
2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004
Total

Country of Import
Estonia
Kazakhstan
Mozambique
Russian Fed.
Singapore
UkraineUSA
Kazakhstan
Russan Fed.
Georgia
Germany
Hong Kong
Russian Fed.
South Africa
UkraineUSA
Azerbaijan
Kenya
Latvia
Mauritius
MyanmarRussian Fed.
-

Quantity (t)
0.30
0.90
0.08
22.22
0.03
3.25
0.90
1.50
22.90
0.06
0.00
0.02
80.76
0.50
112.08
1.00
0.50
4.55
2.00
0.05
0.85
12.32
266.77

India’s Customs data also show
the import into India of significant
quantities of “Serpentina roots”
from 1999/2000-2003/2004, withover 200 t of roots imported during
this period (Table 5). Myanmar, arange State for R. serpentina, wasthe reported source of nearly threequarters of this trade (158 t). According to data provided by
CHEMEXIL (1997/1998), 28 t of
Rauvolfia serpentina was imported
from Myanmar (GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA PLANNING COMMISSION 2000).
Trade data for 1999-2000 correspond very roughly to CITES annual report data from Myanmar for
1999; none of the other imports arereflected in CITES data, however.

Two African countries were reported as the source of 47 t ofroots, these are most likely another
Rauvolfia species (e.g. R. vomitoria) rather
than R. serpentina.
TRAFFIC INDIA (1998) identified the UK, theNetherlands and the Philippines as the main
importers of Rauvolfia products from India.
LANGE & WÄCHTER (1996) named the United
Arab Emirates and the USA as importing
countries in the late 1970s and the Philippines, Portugal and Singapore in the early
1990s. According to a formulator in Nepal(AMATYA in litt. 2005), preparations containing “Rauvolfia” were also exported to theNetherlands until the Dutch Government
imposed a restriction on the importation of
formulations containing Rauvolfia serpentina, as it might encourage fungal infectionin the digestive system.
CITES reporting of trade in extracts waslimited to exporting Parties (Table 6), withapproximately 33 kg of extract exports reported from 1999-2003. Virtually all of thistrade originated from India, from a mix ofwild and cultivated sources. Trade in extracts was unreported, and therefore theoretically unmonitored, by importing Parties.
This presumably reflects a decision to consider extracts to be “chemical derivatives”
and therefore not subject to CITES tradecontrols per CITES Annotation #2, whichapplied to the CITES listing of this species.

Exports of Rauvolfia extract and associatedproducts recorded in India’s Customs data
are larger by several orders of magnitude,with exports totalling over 250 t from 1999/2000-2003/2004 (Table 7). The main export destinations were
the Russian Federation and countries in Eastern Europe, with the Ukraine the reported export destinationfor 112 t in 2001/2002 alone.
Source: Export Import Data Bank, Department of Commerce,
India.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

99

Table 8. CITES-reported trade in Rauvolfia serpentina (1997-2003)
Country Country Originof Exof Import
port

ExportQuantity Unit

Term

Import

P S

1997

CL

DE

??

1997

DE

CL

??

1997

IN

RU

1997

IN

RU

1997

CL

DE

1997

IN

PH

1998

IN

RU

600

g

Extract

T A

1998

IN

SG

1 830

g

Extract

T A

1998

IN

US

45

g

Extract

T A

1999

IN

BG

60

g

Extract

T W

1999

IN

CY

150

g

Extract

T W

1999

IN

RU

2

kg

Extract

T W

1999

IN

RU

1 015

g

Extract

T W

1999

IN

SY

5

kg

Extract

T W

1999

IN

US

500

g

Extract

T W

??

200

g

Derivatives

E U

2000
000
14

?

Derivatives

T A

kg

Derivatives

T A

200

g

Dried plants E U

50kg

PowderQuantity

Unit

Term

P S

200

g

Derivatives

E U

7 114

kg

Roots

T

9 011

kg

Roots

T W

4 020

kg

Roots

T W

T A

1999

MM

IN

1999

MM

IN

14 340

kg

Roots

T U

1999

TH

DE

3 300

kg

Roots

A

2000

DE

AU

11

kg

Roots

T W

2000

IN

CH

100

kg

Roots

T A

2000

IN

RU

2 235

g

Extract

T A

2000

TH

DE

2000

TH

DE

2001

TH

DE

2001

TH

DE

2002

IN

DE

125

kg

Roots

T A

2002

IN

DE

250

g

Roots

T A

2002

TH

DE

1 740

kg

Roots

T W

Live

T W

TH

9 500
4 020

1 740

kg
kg

kg

Roots

W

Roots

W

2002

TH

DE

2002

TH

US

Roots

W

2002

TH

US

2003

DE

BG

??

1

2003

DE

CH

TH

170

kg

Roots

T W

2003

DE

US

TH

10

kg

Roots

T W

186
186

Live
Specimens

I

W
L

I

2003

DE

ZA

TH

20

kg

Extract

T A

2003

DE

ZA

TH

5

kg

Roots

T W

2003

DE

ZA

TH

15

kg

Roots

T A

2003

TH

DE

2 370

kg

Roots

T W

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

According to a CITES Management Authority staff member, exports are limited to only one Rauvolfia alkaloid, reserpine, produced from imported R. vomitoria, with an affidavit to this effect obtained from exporters
prior to permitting export. Quantities are checked to ensure that exports do not exceed those that could100Rauvolfia serpentina

have been produced from imported R. vomitoria, and the exporter is provided with a No Objection Certificate. As the trade does not involve the CITES-listed R. serpentina, this trade is not recorded in CITES
annual reports. R. serpentina is also exported in the form of formulations. As this product had been exempt from CITES provisions under Annotation #2, no CITES permits were issued and no records maintained (JAIN in litt. 2005).
CITES annual report data (Table 8) and India’s Customs data differ further in terms of the countries identified as trading partners. CITES-reported exports from India to China and the Russian Federation in 2000
(100 kg roots and 2.2 kg extract respectively) are not reflected in Customs data. Similarly, Customsreported imports of roots from other R. serpentina range States (e.g. Myanmar and Nepal) are not reflected in CITES data. While it is possible that this trade involves other Rauvolfia species, this seems
unlikely. Based on available information, it appears that only two species, R. serpentina and the African R.
vomitoria, are used in significant quantities to produce reserpine, and there is no evidence of cultivation of
the latter species in either Myanmar or Nepal.
Thailand emerged as a significant exporter of R. serpentina roots in 1999, exporting 24 t of roots from1999-2004, primarily to Germany, with a peak of 9.5 t exported in 2000. In 2003, Germany re-exported
relatively small quantities (20 kg extracts (artificially propagated) and 200 kg roots) to various countries(South Africa, China and the USA).
Twelve US suppliers of reserpine were identified in the USA in 2001 (CHEM SOURCES 2001). However, a
US industry source indicated that only a few companies currently use the species in the USA, although
there has been a recent increase in interest in the species. Trade primarily involves dry roots. Based on
an internet survey, medicinals containing R. serpentina or reserpine extracted from similar species appear
to be unavailable in North America (TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA in litt. 2005). The only references to thespecies found were the sale of R. serpentina seeds by a Canadian company, at USD3.75 per package
and sale by a company in Hawaii which markets live plants for USD12.50 each. US exports were considered to be negligible (HSDB 2001). As noted under uses, reserpine is considered to have “adverse effects” (CHEMIDPLUS 2005), and is anticipated to be a carcinogen (ANON. 2002b), which seems likely to
explain its absence from US markets.
R. serpentina has also been imported into the Republic of Korea according to the Ministry of Environment (CHUNG 1998).
Illegal harvest and trade. According to OUDHIA (2001-2003), R. serpentina was illegally harvested andtraded in Chhattisgarh, in India, sometimes falsely labelled as turmeric, the trade of which is not controlled, and sometimes passed off as cultivated specimens. At the time of R. serpentina’s inclusion in Appendix II, illegal exports from India were believed to be substantial (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1989). However,seizures reported in India generally concerned very small quantities (Table 9). An exception to this was aconsignment of approximately seven tonnes of R. serpentina roots, seized at the Kolkata dock in September 1999 (ANON. 2001).
Table 9. Offences related to the export of Rauvolfia serpentina from India (2000-2003)
Date
Place
Destination
Part
Quantity
29.08.00
FPO, Kolkata
The Netherlands
Roots
1.8 kg31.07.01
FPO, New Delhi
USA
Powder
100 g
03.04.02
Air Cargo, Mumbai
Egypt
100 kg13.11.02
IGI Air Cargo, New Delhi
Austria
10 kg
25.11.02
IGI Air Cargo, New Delhi
Hong Kong
Extract
2 kg
20.10.03
FPO, Kolkata
RussiaTablets
1.5 kg** Estimated amount based on the total seizure.
Source: CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Offence
EXIM and CITES
EXIM
EXIM
EXIM
EXIM
EXIM

TRAFFIC INDIA (1998) reported on undocumented imports into India from Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan.
From 2000-2003, only one offence involved such imports: on 4 March 2002, one tonne of R. serpentina
exported from Belgium to India was seized at Air Cargo Mumbai (CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
2003). As noted below, until recently India did not generally implement CITES trade controls for imports ofthis species, with the effect that imports recorded in Customs data were not illegal according to Indian law.
However, they were in violation of CITES requirements.
Noting high demand from pharmaceutical industries, particularly from traditional Chinese medicine, andMyanmar’s long common borders with China, Thailand and India, the Director of Myanmar’s CITES Scientific Authority believes that illegal trade may occur. However, there have been no reports of large seizures by Customs staff in border areas. He reported that no applications for CITES export permits had
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

101been received (ZAW in litt. 2005). Reports of large-scale imports from Myanmar documented in India’s
Customs data were received with surprise, and further enquiries were being made by the Forest Department as a result of receiving this information (AUNG DIN 2005).
Illegal trade from Nepal is suspected, potentially under the name "Chandmaruwa" (AMATYA in litt. 2005).

Legislation and regulations
Regulation of harvest, manufacturing and domestic trade. The main laws governing harvesting of
medicinal plants in India are the Indian Forest Act (1927), and, to a lesser extent, the Wildlife (Protection)
Act (1927/1991/2002). The Indian Forest Act (1927) consolidates the law relating to forest produce, thetransit thereof and duty thereon, and empowers State Governments to regulate the transit of forest produce, e.g. medicinal plants. The Act deals specifically with reserved, protected, and village forests. Almost
all the States and Union Territories in India have regulations regarding harvest, transit and trade in medicinal plants. Most have established lists of species banned from harvest from forests (“Negative lists”),
which include threatened plants (JAIN 2000).
The Indian Forest Act (1927) has been adopted by most of the States and is directly applicable to the Union Territories of India. The remaining States have enacted State Forest Acts of their own, which arelargely based on the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Acts of the States have been amended from time totime as required. The States have framed Rules under the Acts to protect and preserve the forest wealthof their respective States (JAIN 2000). Harvest and trade of Rauvolfia serpentina is banned in Chhattisgarh(OUDHIA 2001-2003). See JAIN (2000) for a state-by-state analysis of legislation relevant to the harvest
and trade of medicinal plants in general.
Wildlife harvest and domestic trade controls are implemented in Nepal’s national parks, conservation
areas and protected areas via the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973); elsewhere in the
country, implementation is via the Forest Act (1993) and the accompanying Forest Regulation (1995)(AMATYA in litt. 2005, ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000, SHRESTHA in litt. 2000). A summary of these andrelated controls for medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products has been compiled by the Asia
Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) and can be found on their website(BINAYEE undated).
The Forest Act and Regulation stipulate rules pertaining to the collection of forest products. Collection is
authorized via licences issued by District Forest Officers (DFO). Licences are required to specify the collection area; the period in which harvest is to take place; the species and quantities to be collected; andmethod of harvest (AMATYA in litt. 2005, ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). Licence applicants are required
to provide this information and specify the purpose of collection. In accordance with the Regulation, District Forest Officers are required to verify the quantity of medicinal plants collected, collect any associatedfees, and issue a “release order”, which is required to transport harvested plants out of the district of origin. The release order should state: the species and quantity transported; the destination; and the period
in which transportation must take place (ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). There is also a provision to allow harvest and trade licences to be sold at auction (ARYAL 2000).
In their 2001 study in the Dhading District, PANDIT & THAPA (2004) found that implementation of these licensing provisions was low in government forests, reflecting a combination of a lack of resource management rights among the local population and low government enforcement capacity. Inspection of harvested materials to ensure compliance with licence provisions was considered to be low. Adherence tolicence provisions was similarly found to be low in community forests, where permitting provisions still
applied, but harvest rights were restricted to members of forest user groups. Others have similarly noted
low levels of implementation of national harvest and trade controls for medicinal plants and other nontimber forest products (e.g. see MULLIKEN 2000, OLSEN 2005).
The species is not protected within national legislation in Myanmar (ZAW in litt. 2005), however harvests
are controlled via the Forest Law and The Protection of Wildlife and Conservation of Natural Areas Law,
with very clear procedures being declared to the public (AUNG DIN 2005). Annual harvest quotas are set by
the Forest Department based on information provided by foresters in their forestry operation reports, andharvesting instructions announced by regional offices (ZAW in litt. 2005). Regular forest operations areundertaken annually under Myanmar’s Forest Management System, and information recorded (AUNG DIN
2005), however no scientific surveys have been undertaken of this species (ZAW in litt. 2005). Harvest isallowed in buffer zones around protected areas. In Thailand, harvesting in protected areas is prohibited
under the Forest Act and National Park Act.

102

Rauvolfia serpentina

Regulation of international trade
CITES listing: Rauvolfia serpentina was listed in CITES Appendix II effective 18 January 1990 following
acceptance of a proposal from India. The listing was annotated with Annotation #2, which designates “allparts and derivatives, except a) seeds and pollen; b) seedlings or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid
or liquid media, transported in sterile containers; c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants; and d)chemical derivatives and finished pharmaceuticals”. The annotation was modified at CITES CoP 14 (The
Hague, June 2007), as part of a Plants Committee process to clarify and harmonise annotations for medicinal plants. The revised annotation, effective 13 September 2007, "Designates all parts and derivatives
except: a) seeds and pollen; and b) finished products packaged and ready for retail trade”.
There is conflicting information regarding India’s export controls for this species prior to the mid-1990s.
Bans on the export of Rauvolfia serpentina have been stated as being in place in India since 1955 (IUCN& TRAFFIC 1989) and 1969 (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). India’s CITES listing proposal for this species statedthat the export of the crude drug from wild origin was banned in 1981 (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 1989). As of
March 1994, the export of wild-harvested R. serpentina was prohibited through the species’ inclusion in
the Negative List of Exports in March 1994. However, this ban would not appear to have extended to exports of formulations (see below) or cultivated products.
CITES is implemented in India through a combination of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972/1991/2002 andthe Export and Import Policy (EXIM) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 andthe Customs Act, 1962. The Wildlife (Protection) Act prohibits export of a number of species, including all
six CITES Appendix I plant species native to India, of which one, Kuth Saussurea lappa, is a medicinal
plant.
Policy on trade in wildlife and wildlife products is established via the EXIM policy, which is revised periodically. The policy, as far as it concerns wildlife, is decided in consultation with the Director of Wildlife Preservation of the Government of India, who is the CITES Management Authority and oversees CITES implementation in the country. The Director has four Regional Deputy Directors and four sub-regional officesof wildlife preservation, these serving as assistant CITES Management Authorities. The EXIM policy is put
into effect via the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 and enforced
via the Customs Act (CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA in litt. 2004).
The EXIM policy was embedded within a broader Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004-2009, thischange coming into effect on 1 September 2004. The Foreign Trade Policy aims at doubling India’s sharein global trade and expanding employment opportunities, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, andincludes a Special Agricultural Produce Scheme, promoting the export of, inter alia, minor forest produce
such as medicinal plants and their value-added products. The policy outlines that all export and import
shall be “free”, i.e. unrestricted, unless regulated under any legislation. Goods imported in accordancewith this policy may be exported in the same form without a licence, provided that there is no import orexport restriction for the items. Even goods restricted for import may be imported under Customs Bond forexport without a licence provided that the items are freely exportable. Specific note is made in the policythat this does not preclude the application of other laws (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2004).
Import and export restrictions for specific products are established via India’s ITC (HS) classifications inaccordance with the broader policy. Several categories relevant to CITES-listed species have been identified as goods allowed to be imported without restriction (i.e. free of import duties or quotas), e.g. “medicinal plants, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered” (Schedule 1 Chapter 12), lac, gums,
resins and other vegetable extracts (Schedule 1, Chapter 13), pharmaceutical products (Schedule 1,
Chapter 30) and essential oils (Schedule 1, Chapter 33). Although instructions under the EXIM policy for
1997-2002 stipulated that imports of plants, products and derivatives were subject to CITES provisions(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), the low levels of trade data for imports of CITES-listed species into India indicatethat these provisions were not implemented effectively.
It does not appear that any CITES-related import controls were established via the policy for 2004-2009
until early 2006, nor that these existed under other legislation (with the exception of Saussurea lappa),
with the effect that imports of CITES-listed medicinal plant species was uncontrolled. However, on
6 February 2006 the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items were amended such that importsof Rauvolfia spp. (all species) are to be subject to CITES provisions (Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce Notification No. 42 RE-2005/2004-09). Similar amendments were made for
Kuth (Saussurea lappa) roots, cacti, agarwood and agar oil. This would seem to indicate that CITES tradecontrols are not required for imports of other CITES-listed plant species, however confirmation of this isrequired.
As stipulated in Chapter 12 of the ITC (HS) classifications, the export of plants, plant portions, their derivatives and extracts of species included in CITES Appendix I and II and obtained from the wild is generally
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

103

prohibited. Further clarification is required to confirm whether this applies to wild specimens regardless of
their country of origin, or to only those specimens obtained within India. An “Export Licensing Note” appended to Chapter 12 specifies 29 plant taxa for which export is generally prohibited. This list includes
Rauvolfia serpentina. An exception for both CITES species and those listed in the Licensing Note is madefor the export of “formulations”, defined as including “products which may contain portions/extracts ofplants on the prohibited list but only in unrecognizable and physically inseparable form” and “value-added
formulations as well as herbal Ayurvedic” (Chapter 12, Export Licensing Note 3). It is not clear whether theterm “recognizable” is defined per the CITES interpretation of “readily recognizable” such that if the ingredients of a particular formulation of Ayurvedic medicine are listed on the packaging, then they are considered to be “recognizable”. The instructions include a note that states that “no certificate from any authorities whatsoever shall be required for their [formulations] export,” implying that no CITES permits would be
required for such exports. This would appear to allow for trade in violation of CITES for species included in
the Appendices with Annotation #1, including e.g. Dioscorea deltoidea, but not for R. serpentina, the annotation for which excludes chemical derivatives and finished pharmaceuticals. Export Licensing Note 2states that export permits are required, however it is not clear if this applies only to cultivated specimens,
which are allowed to be exported (see below) or also to formulations. CITES Management Authority staff
have advised that, if Customs staff refer a shipment of “formulations” containing CITES-listed species tothe Management Authority for clearance, then issuance of a CITES export permit will be required (AARTI inlitt. 2005).
A further exception is provided for exports of wild CITES-listed species on a case-by-case basis for “lifesaving drugs”, which could presumably be applied to any medicinal species. However, in this case a
CITES permit would be required, with such trade only allowed on recommendation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Exports of plants produced via cultivation are allowed subject to obtaining a transit pass from the relevant
Divisional Forest Officer if the plants were cultivated in sites within forests, or a Certificate of Cultivationfrom a District Agriculture, Horticulture or Forest Officer if cultivated at sites outside forests.
Export Licensing Note 2 included in this schedule states that “However, in respect of CITES species, a
CITES permit of export shall be required”. As noted above, it appears that this provision relates to all but
formulations, however this requires further clarification.
It does not appear that export restrictions on wild specimens of CITES-listed species apply to imported
specimens, however this requires confirmation, nor does it appear that there are any specific provisions
made for controlling re-exports of CITES-listed species, other than as may be required to prove that reexports do not involve wild-collected stock from within India. No reference could be found to an earlier(2003) provision requiring exporters of value-added formulations made out of imported species from thelist of “prohibited plants” to provide an affidavit to Customs authorities at the time of export that the specimens were legally imported (NTF NO. 03/2003 31/03/2003). However, CITES Management Authority staff
state that proof of import is required prior to granting re-export permission, and that they take into account,for example, the amount of unprocessed product that would have been required on import to produce agiven export quantity (JAIN in litt. 2005). CITES Re-export Certificates are issued for such shipments(AARTI in litt. 2005).
Exports are required to be limited to the following ports: Mumbai, Nhava Sheva, Kolkata, Cochin, Delhi,
Chennai, Tuticorin, Amritsar, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
2004). It is not clear if this relates to all plants covered under this Customs classification, or only to CITESlisted species and other medicinal species for which export is prohibited.
All violations of the EXIM policy constitute an offence under the Customs Act and are dealt with by Customs officials, who alone have the responsibility to enforce compliance with CITES at border posts. Inspection of consignments by Wildlife Inspectors, co-operating with Customs staff, may also be carried out
at border crossings, but such specialist investigations are few. Enforcement of any violations detected is
the responsibility of the Customs authorities (PANDA in litt. 1998).
There is no specific CITES-implementing legislation in Nepal, however legislation to promote more effective CITES implementation has been under consideration since the late 1990s. If agreed, the Rare (Endangered) Wildlife and Plants Trade Control Act, 2057 (2002) would provide a more powerful legal tool for
CITES implementation within Nepal, and includes a number of CITES-relevant provisions (HEINEN &CHAPAGAIN 2002).
Nepal’s CITES Management Authority for plants is the Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation. The CITES Scientific Authority for plants is the Department of Plant Resources, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation. The Management Authority issues export permits for plants covered by
CITES and/or the Forest Act that are in a processed or semi-processed form (BISTA in litt. 2000).
104

Rauvolfia serpentina

Export of Rauvolfia serpentina from Nepal was banned in 1995 via publication of a notification in the Nepal Gazette (under rule 12 and 13 (2) of the Forest Regulation, 1995) on 3 April 1995. This was amended
in 2001 to allow export in processed form, as long as processing takes place within Nepal and permission
is obtained from the Department of Forests, advised by the Department of Plant Resources and Herb Production and Processing Co. Ltd. (per Clause 2 of Nepal Gazette vol. 3, Section 51 No. 36, dated 31 December 2001 issued by Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation) (AMATYA in litt. 2005). According to
PANDIT & THAPA (2004), the ban on export of raw materials of certain medicinal species has been misinterpreted by some District Forest Office staff as relating to trade from one District to another, rather than toexport from Nepal, increasing the incentive for illegal trade by village collectors.
The Management Authority also maintains liaison with the Department of Customs, Intelligence, Policeand other agencies. However, it was noted in 2000 that Customs officers had not been trained in the identification of medicinal plants (BISTA, in litt. 2000); it is unknown if training has been provided since thattime. Personnel from the Department of Forests and District Forest Offices have been posted at the Customs points in the Terai to examine consignments containing wild flora (ARYAL 2000).
Treaty of Trade between Nepal and India
In an effort to expand trade between their two countries, the Governments of India and Nepal entered intoa bilateral trade agreement in 1991. The treaty provides for preferential treatment (exemption from Customs duty and quantitative restrictions) of trade of certain “primary products”, which include forest producethat has not undergone processing, and Ayurvedic and herbal medicines (Article IV) (ANON. 2002c). Under
this treaty, a certificate of origin issued by the Government of Nepal is the only document required forpresentation to India’s Customs authorities at the time of import (MULLIKEN 2000). Trade in conjunction
with the treaty is required to take place via one of the 22 border crossings designated in Annex A of thetreaty. During the late 1990s, border officials were unaware that CITES documentation might also be required for export (as noted above, under India’s current CITES implementing legislation and the EXIM
Policy, CITES export permits would not be required to accompany shipments into India in any event). The
treaty contains provisions for stronger domestic measures on the part of national governments, and provides a list of articles not allowed preferential treatment (e.g. cigarettes and alcohol) as an annex. It appears that this annex could be amended to reflect CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
TRAFFIC INDIA informed Government authorities in both India and Nepal of the apparent relevance of thistreaty with respect to CITES trade controls. Initial research results from this study were communicated tothe second Indo-Nepal Trans-border Meeting in February 1999. As a result, the final resolution of thatmeeting called for bringing the bilateral treaty in line with CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
The treaty was extended for a further five years in 2002 and remained in effect until 5 March 2007 (ANON.
2002c). Although some amendments were made, these did not reflect the concerns raised regarding
CITES implementation (AMATYA in litt. 2005). The treaty has been extended for a further five years, andwill remain in effect until 5 March 2012.
In Myanmar, exports and imports are required to take place in accordance with CITES trade controls,
however thus far there have been no applications for CITES permits (ZAW in litt. 2005). In Thailand, export, import and re-export are restricted under the Plants Act B.E. 2518 (1975) (SANKASUBUAN in litt. 2005).

Conclusions
Use of the roots of Rauvolfia serpentina for traditional medicine and, since the 1950s, as the source ofreserpine used widely in western pharmaceutical products, has resulted in declines in wild populations,particularly in India, where the species is considered to be threatened through much of its range, and Nepal, where it is similarly considered at risk. Little information appears to be available regarding its status in
Myanmar and Thailand, which, along with India and Nepal, appear to be the main countries engaged ininternational trade.
R. serpentina continues to be an important component of traditional medicine within India, as well as thestarting material for production of reserpine, with India’s demand predicted to have increased to nearly
600 t for 2004/2005. Much, if not the majority, of this demand appears to be supplied from other range
States, where the species also continues to be used for medicinal purposes, and by other species, particularly R. vomitoria, which is native to Africa. Available information indicates that use of reserpine inwestern pharmaceutical products in the USA and western Europe is declining, with India’s exports of reserpine having shifted to Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
CITES implementation for this species is incomplete at best with a significant part, if not the vast majority,of international trade taking place outside of CITES trade controls. This is reflected in CITES trade data,
which capture only a small segment of the international trade in this species, with no documentation ofReview of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

105

trade from Nepal to India. The export of Rauvolfia spp. extracts and formulations from India is very large –over 260 t were exported from 1999/2000-2002/2003, however it is not known what proportion of this involves R. serpentina. India imports Rauvolfia roots from other countries, including from R. serpentina
range States, to supply domestic production, including 70 t of roots from Myanmar between April 2003 andMarch 2004. This trade seems likely to have involved R. serpentina, as there is no information to suggestthat R. vomitoria is cultivated in or exported from Myanmar, or of trade in other Rauvolfia species from thatcountry. This and other trade to India therefore requires further examination, particularly in view of the factthat India only recently began applying CITES trade controls to imports of this species from other countries.
Exports (possibly re-exports) of roots and extract from India similarly require further examination.
Although it appears that efforts to cultivate R. serpentina on a commercial scale are underway in India and
Nepal, and to a lesser extent in other range States, there is no evidence that cultivation is meeting a significant portion of demand in India or elsewhere. Given concerns regarding the status of the species, urgent action is required to document the source and quantity of specimens in trade, both domesticallywithin India and internationally, and to develop mechanisms to ensure that wild harvests and trade are
maintained within sustainable levels.

Possible next steps
Governments of Rauvolfia serpentina range States, particularly within India, Myanmar, Nepal and Thailand, might consider:•

Undertaking further work to document the population status and trends of this species, and identify
factors contributing to population declines where these are found to occur;•

Examining harvest and exports in order to ensure that they are maintained within sustainable levels;•

Confirming domestic cultivation levels and the species and origin (wild, cultivated) of specimens exported and imported;•

Supporting local communities in the development of sustainable harvest practices and management
plans for this species, taking into account the species’ status, regeneration capacity and predicted future demand;•

Encouraging industries reliant on this species to support development of sustainable harvest regimes,
and to ensure that all raw materials are sourced from sustainable and legal sources; and•Working collaboratively to ensure that any international trade in this species is in accordance withnational harvest and trade controls, as well as accompanied by appropriate CITES documents.

References
AARTI, Ms. CITES Enforcement Inspector, CITES Management Authority of India (2005): pers. comm. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (16.05.05).
AFC (1995): Study on medicinal plants farm project, Kerala. [reference cited in GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
PLANNING COMMISSION 2000]
AKHTER, R., National Herbarium of Pakistan (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (08.04.2005).
AMATYA, G., Project Manager, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and NTFPs Project, IUCN Nepal (2005): inlitt. to TRAFFIC International.
ANON. (2001): Analysis. Down to Earth. (31.01.2001).
ANON. (2001-2002): Demand study for selected medicinal plants. Vol. 1. Centre for Research, Planningand Action, New Delhi, India.
ANON. (2002a): Proceedings of the International Workshop Endangered Medicinal Plant Species in Himachal Pradesh. 18-19 March 2002. Himachal Unit, Mohal-Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, India.
ANON. (2002b): Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition. US Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, December 2002.
ANON. (2002c): Treaty of trade between His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India.
http://www.tpcnepal.org.np/tagree/treatyoftradeind.htm

106Rauvolfia serpentina

ANON. (2005a): Sacred Seed - Exotic Seed and Houseplant shop www.sacredseed.com (Viewed
01.2005).
ANON. (2005b): Policy free with no conditions http://www.ieport.com/frms/itc-hs.htm (Viewed 05.2005).
ANSARI, A.A. (1993): Threatened medicinal plants from Madhaulia forest of Gorakhpur. Journal of Economic Botany and Taxonomy 17: 241.
ARYAL, R.S. (2000): Legislative framework and the protection of Medicinal Plants in Nepal. In: WATANABE,
T., A. TAKANO, M.S. BISTA, & H.K. SAJIU (Eds.) (2002): Proceeding of Nepal-Japan Joint Symposium on conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, Nov. 6-11.11.2000, pp.
27-32, Non-profit Organisation (NPO)/Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR), Japan, 2002.
AUNG DIN, Assistant Director, Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division, Forest Department, Myanmar(2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (05.03.2005).
AYENSU, E.S. (1996): World medicinal plant resources. pp. 11-42, in: Conservation for Productive Agriculture. (V.L. CHOPRA & T.N. KHOSHOO (Eds.)). ICAR, New Delhi, India. [reference cited in BATUGAL &al. 2004]
BALAKRISHNA, P. (1993a): Annotations to WCMC printout entitled ‘Unresolved India - 534 records’. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
BALAKRISHNA, P. (1993b): Letter to KERRY WALTER with corrections on conservation status listings for India.
[reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
BATUGAL, P.A, J. KANNIAH, L.S. YOUNG & J.T. OLIVER (Eds.) (2004): Medicinal plants research in Asia, Volume 1: The Framework and Project Workplans. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
Regional Office for Asia, the Pacific and Oceania (IPGRI-APO), Serdang, Selangor DE, Malaysia.
http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/pdf/944.pdf (Viewed 05.2005).
BHATTARAI, N.K. (1997): Biodiversity-people interface in Nepal. In: BODEKER, G., K.K.S. BHAT, J. BURLEY &P. VANTOMME (Eds.) (2003): Medicinal plants for forest conservation and health care. pp. 78-86,
FAO, Rome (Non-wood Forest Products 11).
BHATTARAI, N., M. KHARKI & V. TANDON (2002): Report of the CAMP workshop in Nepal. MPSG.
BINAYEE, S.B. (undated): Government Regulations in NTFPs Trade. ANSAB. http://www.ansab.org/News_Fol/government_regulation.htm (Viewed 24.04.2005).
BISTA, M.S. (2000): in litt. to the CITES Secretariat (23.02.2000).
CHANDEL, K.P.S. & N. SHARMA (1996): In vitro conservation of diversity in medicinal plants of northwest
Himalaya. In: HANDA, S.S. & M.K. KAUL (Eds.) (1996): Supplement to cultivation and utilization of
medicinal plants. pp. 741-752, Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu-Tawi, India.
CHATTERJEE, S.K. (2004): News and Notes. ICAP News No 10. January. CHATTERJEE, S.K. (2004). Newsand Notes. ICAP News No 10. Indian Consultants Associate Pvt. Ltd. [reference cited in JAIN in
litt. 2005]
CHEMIDPlus (2005): National Library of Medicine Specialised Information Services. http://chem.sis.nlm.
nih.gov/chemidplus/jsp/common/ChemFull.jsp?MW=608.684 (Viewed 16.05.2005).
CHEM SOURCES (2001): Chemical Sources International, Inc. http:/www.chemsources.com. [reference
cited in ANON. 2002b]
CHUNG RAE-KWANG, Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea (1998): in litt. to D. Lange, University ofLandau, Germany (02.10.1998).
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2001): CITES Annual Report 2000, Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2002): CITES Annual Report 2001, Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2003): CITES Annual Report 2002, Government of India, New
Delhi, India.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): CITES Annual Report 2003, Government of India, New
Delhi, India.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

107

CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant.
DHAWAN, VIKAS, Dhawan Enterprises, Dehradun, India (2005): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant(10.03.2005).
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (2004): Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. Ministry of commerce& Industry, Government of India, New Delhi on http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/ (Viewed 16.01.2005).
EVERETT, T.H. (1981-1982): The New York Botanical Garden illustrated encyclopaedia of horticulture. 10
volumes. -xx+3601 pp., Garland, New York, USA.
FAO (2002): Non-Wood Forest Products in 15 Countries of Tropical Asia, pp. 199. http://www.
fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/005/AB598E/AB598E00.htm (Viewed 29.04.05).
FAROOQI, A.A & B.S. SREERAMU (2001): Cultivation of medicinal and aromatic crops. -518 pp., University
Press (India) Limited, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029 (A.P.), India.
FROHNE, D. (1994): Heilpflanzenlexikon, 6. edition. 692 p. Fischer, Stuttgart, Germany.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1989): CITES Proposal. Inclusion of Rauvolfia serpentina in Appendix II of theConvention.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PLANNING COMMISSION (2000): Report of the Task Force on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1989). CITES Proposal. Inclusion of Rauvolfia serpentine in Appendix II of theConvention.
GUPTA, O.P., Partner Om Prakash Vijay Kumar, Delhi, India (2005): pers. comm. to P. Jain, Medicinal
Plant Consultant (16.01.2005).
HARA, H., W.T. STEARN & L.H.J. WILLIAMS (1978-1982): An enumeration of the flowering plants of Nepal. 3
volumes. British Museum of Natural History, London, UK. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC
Threatened Plants Database]
HAU CHI-HANG (1997): A general evaluation of Hong Kong's trade [in] medicinal plants listed in CITES.
Second draft report. - 41 pp., 10 photos, TRAFFIC East Asia. (Unpublished report).
HEINEN, J. & D.P. CHAPAGAIN (2002): On the expansion of species protection in Nepal: Advances and pitfalls of new efforts to implement and comply with CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy 5:235-250.
HENDRIAN, R. (1997): Rauvolfia serpentina (L.) BENTH. EX KURZ (Pule Pandak, Java). Published in Explorasi 3(1): 8. http:/ / www.bogor.indo.net.id/ rauvolfia.htm (Viewed 13.04.1999).
HERMAN, E.B. (Ed.) (1989): Useful plant products from in vitro cultures. Agricell Report 12(4): 1, 26. [reference cited in SHELDON & al. 1997]
HOOKER, J.D. (1872): Flora of British India. London, UK. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened
Plants Database]
HSDB (2001): Hazardous substances databank. Online database produced by the national library of
medicine. Reserpine. (profile last updated 09.08.2001; last review date 06.05.2000). [reference
cited in ANON. 2002b]
IQBAL, M. (1993): International trade in non-wood forest products. An overview. - xii+100 pp., FAO, Rome,
Italy.
IUCN (1987): Directory of Indomalayan protected areas. Bhutan. Draft. IUCN Protected Areas Data Unit,
Cambridge, UK. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
IUCN & TRAFFIC (Eds.) (1989): Analyses of proposals to amend the CITES Appendices. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
IUCN NEPAL (2004): National Register of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Revised and updated).
xiii+202 pp. IUCN, Nepal.
JAICHAGUN, M., CITES Management Authority Thailand (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC Southeast Asia
(21.02.2005).
JAICHAGUN, M., CITES Management Authority Thailand (2006): in litt. to Uwe Schippman, CITES Management Authority Germany (21.02.2005).

108

Rauvolfia serpentina

JAIN, S. K. & R.R. RAO (Eds.) (1983): An assessment of threatened plants of India. Proceedings of theseminar held at Dehra Dun, 14-17 September 1981. - xiii+334 pp., Botanical Survey of India,
Dept. Environment, Howrah, India.
JAIN, A.K. (2000): Regulation of collection, transit and trade of medicinal plants and other non-timber forest
produce in India – A compendium. xxix +529. TRAFFIC-India/WWF India, New Delhi.
JAIN, P. (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
JAIN, S.K. (1996): Medicinal Plants. 148-149pp, National Book Trust, New Delhi, India.
JARYAL, Dr G.S. (2001): Medicinal and aromatic plants suitable for commercial cultivation. 2nd Edition.
CEDMAP, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
LANGE, D. (2005): IN LITT. to TRAFFIC International.
LANGE, D. & U. SCHIPPMANN (1999): Checklist of medicinal and aromatic plants and their trade names covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97. Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Unpublished report,
Bonn, Germany.
LANGE, D. & M. WÄCHTER (1996): Untersuchung der gefährdung von pflanzenarten durch den internationalen heilpflanzenhandel mit Indien unter besonderer berücksichtigung des handels zwischen Indien
und Deutschland. - 101 pp., Annexes, Unpublished report, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
MANANDHAR, N.P. (2002): Plants and people of Nepal. – +599pp. Timber Press Inc., Portland, Oregon
97204, USA.
MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN (1996): TROPICOS. Flora of China checklist. (05.4.1996).
http://www.mobot.org/ mobot/ tropicos/ china/ china4/ n01800013.html (Viewed 09.04.1999).
MOFSC, HMG NEPAL, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS (1995): Forest Regulation 1995 and Nepal Gazette vol. 3,
Section 51 No. 36, dated 31 December 2001.
MOFSC, HMG NEPAL, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS (2005): Collection and sales information Rauvolfia serpentina.
MOLUR, S., D.K. VED, V. TANDON, N. NAMBOODIRI & S. WALKER (Eds.) (1995): Conservation assessment andmanagement plan (CAMP) for selected species of medicinal plants of southern India. - 108 pp.,
Zoo Outreach Organisation/CBSG India.
MOLUR, S. & S. WALKER (Eds.) (1998): Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) workshop report. Selected medicinal plants of northern, northeastern and central India. Lucknow 21-25
January 1997. - iv+64 pp., ZOO Outreach Organization, CBSG India, Coimbatore, India.
MONACHINO J. (1954): Rauvolfia serpentina: Its history, botany and medical use. Economic Botany 8:349365. [reference cited in WHO 1999]
MORTON, J.F. (1977): Major Medicinal Plants Botany, Culture and Uses. Charles C. Thomas Publishers,
Springfield, IL USA.
MULLIKEN, T.A. (2000): Implementing CITES for Himalayan Medicinal Plants Nardostachys grandiflora andPicrorhiza kurrooa. In: TRAFFIC Bulletin 18: 63-72.
NATIONAL FORMULARY BOARD, AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION (1975): National formulary XIV.
Washington, DC, USA. [reference cited in WHO 1999]OUDHIA, P. (2001, 2002, 2003): My experience and interactions with growers and traders of medicinal
herbs Sarpagandha (Rauvolfia serpentina) and Chandrashoor (Lepidium sativum) in India withspecial reference to Chhattisgarh. http://botanical.com/site/column_poudhia/49_sarpgandha.html(Viewed 10.02.2005).
OUDHIA, P. (2003): Research note. http://botanical.com/site/column_poudhia/49_sarpgandha.html Website
Botanical.com (Viewed 02.05.05).
OLSEN, C.S. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (22.02.2000) .
OLSEN, C.S. (2005): Trade and conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants: Nardostachys grandiflora DC.
and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennel) Hong. Biological Conservation 125(4):505-514.
PANDA, S. (1998): in litt. to TRAFFIC India (09.11.1998).
PANDIT, B.H. & G.B. THAPA (2004): A tragedy of non-timber forest resources in the mountain commons of
Nepal. Environment and Conservation 30: 283-292.
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

109

PATNAIK, S. (1999): Conservation assessment and management planning workshop for non-timber forest
products in Madhya Pradesh. Report. - iv+39 pp., Annex, Indian Institute of Forest Management,
Bhopal, India.
PHAN THUC VAT (1996): Sach do Viet Nam [Red data book of Viet Nam 2. Plants, in Vietnamese]. - 484
pp., Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi, Viet Nam. [reference cited in the UNEPWCMC Threatened Plants Database]
RAJKARNIKAR, K.M., H.K. SAIJU, & G.D BHATTA (2000): In vitro culture of Rauvolfia serpentina L. Benth. ex
Kurz. In: WATANABE, T., A. TAKANO, M.S. BISTA, & H.K. SAJIU (Eds.): Proceeding of Nepal-Japan
Joint Symposium on conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, Nov. 611.11.2000, pp. 232-234, Non-profit Organisation (NPO)/Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR), Japan 2002.
RAMACHANDRAN, K.V., Senior Manager (Materials), Arya Vaidya Sala, Kottakkal, India (2005): in litt. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant (10.01.2005).
RASOANAIVO, P. (1990): Rain forests of Madagascar. Sources of industrial and medicinal plants. Ambio 19:
421-424.
ROY, S. & Z. HOSSAIN (1999): Artificial propagation of Rauvolfia serpentina for large scale plantation in theforests (10.2.1999) In: METLA, Finnish Forest Research Institute (Eds.): Post-Congress Information Service. IFRU XX World Congress, 6-12.8.1995. www.metla.fi/conf/iufro95abs/ dpap128.htm(Viewed 06.04.1999).
SAMANT, S. S., U. DHAR & L.M.S. PALNI (1998): Medicinal plants of Indian Himalaya: Diversity distribution
potential value. pp. 155-158. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, Uttaranchal, India.
SANKASUBUAN, S. Chief International Trade of Plants under Conventions Sub-division, Management Authority Thailand (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (01.2005).
SHARMA, U.R., PhD, Director General, His Majesty’s Government Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forests, Nepal (2006): in litt. to U. Schippman, CITES Scientific Authority,
Germany (16.05.06).
SCHIPPMANN, U. (2001): Medicinal Plants Significant Trade Study CITES Project S-109; BfN Skripten 39,
Bonn, Germany.
SHELDON, J.W., M.J. BALICK & S. LAIRD (1997): Medicinal Plants. Can Utilization and Conservation Coexist? Advances in Economic Botany 12. New York Botanical Garden, New York, USA.
SHRESTHA, T.B. (1988): pers. comm. (24.06.1988). Nepal RDB Project: An inventory of endemic, endangered and threatened plants. WWF Project no. 53. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
SHRESTHA, T.B. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (25.02.2000).
SIDDIQUE, N.A., M.A. BARI, A.T.M. NADERUZZAMAN, N. KHATUN, M.H. RAHMAN, R.S. SULTANA, M.N. MATIN,SHARMIN SHAHNEWAZ & M.M. RAHMAN (2004): Collection of indigenous knowledge and identification of endangered medicinal plants by questionnaire survey in Barind Tract of Bangladesh. Journal of Biological Sciences 4(1): 72-80.
SINGH, P.M. (1997): Propagation methods for Indian medicinal plants of conservation concern. Amruth
1(11):1-30.
SUVATTI, C. (1978): Flora of Thailand. 2 vols. Bangkok, Thailand. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC
Threatened Plants Database]
TRAFFIC INDIA (1998): Medicinal plants significant trade study. CITES project (S 109). India country report. 103 pp., unpublished report, New Delhi, India.
TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
TRAFFIC SOUTH-EAST ASIA (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (18.02.2005).
UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database. Maintained by the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
VED, D. K., G. A. KINHAL, K. RAVIKUMAR, MOHAN KARNAT, R. VIJAYA SANKAR, & J.H. INDRESHA (2003): Threat
assessment & management prioritisation for the medicinal plants of Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh. Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.

110

Rauvolfia serpentina

WALTER, K.S. & H.J. GILLETT (Eds.) (1998): 1997 IUCN Red List of threatened plants. - lxii+862 pp., IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.
WHO (1999): Monographs on selected medicinal plants (4 volumes). Volume 1, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.who.int/medicines/library/trm/medicinalplants/pdf/221to230.pdf (Viewed 04.2005).
WIART, C. (2000): Medicinal plants of Southeast Asia. Pelanduk Publications, Kelana Jaya, Malaysia.
WICHTL, M. (Ed.) (1997): Teedrogen, 3. edition. - 668 pp., Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart, Germany.
WIJESINGHE, L., I. GUNATILLEKE, S. JAYAWARDANA, S. KOTAGAMA, & C. GUNATILLEKE (1990): Biological conservation in Sri Lanka. A national status report. - 64 pp. Natural Resources, Energy and Science
Authority of Sri Lanka, Colombo, Sri Lanka. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened
Plants Database]
ZAW, U. KHIN MAUNG, Director CITES Scientific Authority of Myanmar, Nature and Wildlife Conservation
Division, Forest Department (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC Southeast Asia (01.2005).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

111

112

Taxus wallichiana

Taxus wallichiana
Taxonomy

Taxus wallichiana ZUCC. (family Taxaceae)
The taxonomy of Asian Taxus species is uncertain, including with regard to populations
within Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bhutan (currently considered as
T. wallichiana), with the differences between the species not always consistent. Taxus
wallichiana is said to differ from European Taxus baccata in the longer leaves, which are
generally not abruptly cuspidate, and may only merit sub-specific rank. The species in thePhilippines and Indonesia has been said to be T. sumatrana and that in Viet Nam to be
T. chinensis var. mairei (ANON. 2004a). The populations of T. wallichiana in Yunnan are
sometimes regarded as a separate species, T. yunnanensis (XU 1997), but were includedin T. wallichiana by FARJON (1998). Clarification of the taxonomy of T. wallichiana and related species and parts harvested and traded is required, including molecular studies inorder to verify the species status of some of the isolated groups in the Hindu Kush region(AHMAD in litt. 2005). Detailed research is being undertaken at the Royal Botanic Garden,
Edinburgh in this regard (KHAN in litt. 2005).

Synonyms

Taxus baccata subsp. wallichiana (ZUCC.) PILGER, Taxus nucifera WALL., Taxus contorta
GRIFF., Taxus orientalis BERTOL., Taxus yunnanensis W.C. CHENG & L.K. FU (only the last
three are currently in use and are included in the CITES identification sheet).
In 2001, FARJON gave as synonyms: T. wallichiana var. yunnanensis, T. chinensis var.
yunnanensis (IUCN SPECIES SURVIVAL COMMISSION & TRAFFIC 2004). T. wallichiana varieties: T. chinensis (PILGER) REHDER var. chinensis, T. chinensis (PILGER) REHDER var.
mairei (LEMÉE & LÉVEILLÉ) W.C. CHENG & L.K. FU.

Trade names

Banrya (pus), Barma salla (nep), Barmi (hin), Barmi (Pakistan: Murree Valley), Bham salla(nep), Birmi (Hindko, Gojri), Bung (nep), Common yew (eng), English yew (eng), Folia
Taxi (pha), Himalayan yew (eng), Hong dou shan (chi), Laswan (new), Lauth Salla (nep),
Lwait (North Kumaon, Uttaranchal), Patte salla (nep), Salin (Gurung), Sigi (Tamang),Talispatra (hin), Taxi Folium (pha), Taxus wallichiana-Blätter (ger), Thingre salla (nep),
Thuna (Pakistan: Palas Valley), Thuno (hin), Ximalaya Hong dou shan (chi), Zi shan chun(chi) (AHMAD in litt. 2005, IUCN NEPAL in litt. 2004, KHAN in litt. 2005, LANGE & SCHIPPMANN
1999, MANANDHAR 2002, RAWAT in litt. 2005).

Description. Small evergreen tree or shrub, 6-12 m tall (FU & JIN 1992), reaching 18 m according to KHAN
(in litt. 2005) and up to 30 m according to information for Nepal, though more typically 10-12 m (IUCN NEPAL
2004, MALLA & al. 1996, MANANDHAR 2002). Girth 1.5-1.8 m when mature. Bark reddish brown, thin, scaly(FU & JIN 1992). Stem fluted; branches horizontal, wide spreading, not whorled (AHMAD in litt. 2005). Leaves
spirally arranged, irregularly two-ranked, linear, with recurved margins, 2.5-4 cm (FU & JIN 1992), upper surface green, shiny (KHAN in litt. 2005). AHMAD (in litt. 2005) describes the leaves 2.5-8 cm long, linear, flattened, diastichous, acute narrowed into a short petiole which is decurrent along the twig.
Individual trees are either male or female according to KHAN (in litt. 2005), FU & JIN (1992) stating thatflowers are usually dioecious. Male strobilus shortly stalked, globose, arising from axils of the leaves on
the underside of the branchlets of the previous year (FU & JIN 1992). Staminate cone solitary. Sporophylls
6-10 in number, peltate, each with 5-8 pendent sporangia (KHAN in litt. 2005), arranged in catkins (AHMAD
in litt. 2005); microspore not winged (KHAN in litt. 2005). Female strobili solitary, subsessile (FU & JIN
1992), axillary, green, with three pairs of scales, decussate (KHAN in litt. 2005), resembling leafbuds(AHMAD in litt. 2005). In fruit the disk (aril) enlarges, becomes succulent and bright red, ca. 8 mm long andsurrounds the olive green seed of which only the tip is exposed; embryo with 6-7 cotyledons (AHMAD in litt.
2005).
Flowers appear in mid-February to early March and fruit ripens in September/October according to KHAN
(in litt. 2005), possibly referring to populations in Pakistan. Flowering cones March/April-May and fruits
September-October in Himachal Pradesh (CHAUHAN, 1999); fruits appearing in November-December in
Nepal (IUCN NEPAL 2004, MALLA & al. 1996, MANANDHAR 2002).
Slow growing (CHAUDHARY & al. 1999), extremely so according to RIKHARI & al. (1998), with an annual
growth rate of less than 12 inches per year (CHAUDHARY & al. 1999). Some Taxus specimens reach greatages (AHMAD in litt. 2005). Regeneration is said to be poor and the recruitment rate low, linked to poor
seed germination; consumption of the aril by monkeys, birds and rats; and possibly reduced pollination in
response to clipping of foliage and reduction of the canopy for paclitaxel production (RIKHARI & al. 1998).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

113

PUROHIT & al. (2001) also draw attention to the negative effects of grazing by livestock, bark stripping bydeer, exposure to direct sunlight and freezing temperatures and fire.
Distribution. Depending on the taxonomic treatment, T. wallichiana can be said to be wide-ranging in
Asia, occurring from Afghanistan through the Himalayas to the Philippines (HARA & al. 1978-1982, RIEDL
1965). Its range comprises Afghanistan, Bhutan, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal,
Pakistan, the Philippines and Viet Nam.
In China Taxus spp. are mainly distributed in the southwest, in Xizang (FU & JIN 1992) and Yunnan Provinces (XU 1997), but are also reported to occur in the central Provinces of Ganshu, Shaanxi, Sichuan,
Guizhou, Hubei, Hunan, Guangxi and Anhui (ANON. 2004a). According to KHAN (in litt. 2005),
T. wallichiana populations are confined to Gyirong, Xizang, where the species is threatened by logging.
According to the China Species Red List 2004 (WANG & XIE 2004), the Taxus in Xizang is called T. fauna
and the range of T. wallichiana is mainly in the southwest of China.
In India Taxus spp. occur in the northern states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal,
Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur and Meghalaya (MILL 1994). Preferred habitats forT. baccata subsp. wallichiana [T. wallichiana] in Uttaranchal are deeply-shaded, moist and sheltered areas, e.g. gorges (RIKHARI & al. 1998). This species occurs naturally in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve,
Garhwal Himalaya, particularly on the north and northwest slopes, where it is closely associated with
Betula utiliz, Abies pindrow, Acer caesium and Pinus wallichiana; T. baccata is also found in small patches
under the Quercus semecarpifolia and Rhododendron arboreum association in other parts of the Himalayas (SINGH & al. 1992). Primarily an understorey species, it is said never to form extensive cover but
rather to occur in patches under other species (RIKHARI & al. 1998).
In Nepal, the species is sparsely distributed in the western, central and eastern regions at altitudes of2200 to 3400 m (IUCN NEPAL 2004, MANANDHAR 2002). Found in most forests, including shady ravines,
usually as an understorey plant (ANON. 2001a).
Taxus wallichiana is the most common yew species in Pakistan, with almost all Taxus specimens considered to be this species despite intra-specific variation/genetic diversity (AHMAD in litt. 2005), NASIR (1987)
having considered that all yews in Pakistan belong to this species. It grows in the moist temperate forestsof the Hindukush-Himalaya (AHMAD in litt. 2005, KHAN in litt. 2005). Information on its altitudinal distribution
varies slightly, KHAN (in litt. 2005) considered it to occur as low as 1500 m, while AHMAD (in litt. 2005)
stated that its lower limit is 2000 m. The species is said to occur up to 3500 m (AHMAD in litt. 2005, KHAN inlitt. 2005). The species occurs in mixed conifer forest. It is usually associated with Abies spp., Picea spp.
and Juglans spp. according to AHMAD (in litt. 2005), who adds that it sometimes forms pure stands in sheltered sites on chalk in the southeast and on limestone in the northwest. Beautiful stands of T. wallichiana
can be seen at Miandam forest (REHMAN 2002) and near Adidar in Manikhel forest-Orakzai Agency(AHMAD 1999). It is found in Dunga, Tirah in Khyber agency, Dunga Gali, Khaira Gali and Kaghan in Hazara
District, Sho Nala in Swat and Palas valley in District Kohistan (KHAN in litt. 2005). The species occurs
mostly in reserved and protected forests (AHMAD in litt. 2005).
The taxonomy and distribution of the genus in Viet Nam is unclear. FARJON (2001) cites T. chinensis var.
mairei as the only representative. Other works record two species: T. wallichiana from the Dalat plateau ofsouthern Viet Nam and T. chinensis from the karst limestone areas in northern and north western Viet
Nam (HIEP & VIDAL 1996, LUU NGUYEN DUC & THOMAS 2004, PHAN THUC VAT 1996, VU VAN DUNG 1996).
The correct identification of the southern populations remains uncertain.
Population status and threats. IUCN considers T. wallichiana to be Data Deficient1994 (IUCN 2006); it islisted as Lower Risk1994 in the World List of Threatened Trees (OLDFIELD & al. 1998) and FARJON (1998)
regards it as “not threatened”. According to FARJON & al. (1993) most, if not all populations of Taxus spp.
were in decline. The species is said to be very sensitive to forest fires and to dry easily with ground fires(MC CUNE & ALLEN 1985).
A recent assessment of China’s population of T. wallichiana concluded that the species is Vulnerable2001
there based on population declines (XIANG in litt. 2004). A prior assessment of the species’ status (using
different criteria) considered it to be “endangered” in China (FU & JIN 1992). In a three-year period prior toa ban on wild collection that came into effect in 2003, more than 80% of the Taxus resources of Yunnan
were destroyed (ZHANG & al. 2004). XU (in litt. 2005) reports that harvesting both for sale to domestic andforeign markets is currently the main threat and XU (1997) and XU (in litt. 2004) report continuing loss ofgenetic diversity as threats. KHAN (in litt. 2005) considers the population in China to be critically low,
greatly restricted, and threatened by logging.

114

Taxus wallichiana

Other species similar to T. wallichiana occurring in China and listed in the CITES Appendices include
Taxus fuana and T. cuspidata. T. fuana is considered to be Vulnerable1994 globally by IUCN (IUCN 2004).
However, revised evaluations provided by XIANG (in litt. 2004) for the Chinese populations only, consider
T. fuana to be Endangered2001 and T. cuspidata to be Critically Endangered2001 in China. The IUCN Conifer Specialist Group has not yet undertaken regional assessments of these species.
Concern regarding declines of T. wallichiana in India were voiced in the early 1900s owing to harvest for
use as timber, for religious purposes, in tea and in medicine (RIKHARI & al. 1998). A Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshop in Lucknow, India assessed the northeastern Indian populations of T. wallichiana to be Critically Endangered1994 as they had undergone a decline of more than 90%
from 1988-1998 due to harvest for medicinal trade purposes (MOLUR & WALKER 1998). In 2003, CAMP
workshops in Guwahati and Shimla assessed populations as Endangered2001 in Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal and as Critically Endangered2001 in Megahalaya; these declines were due to habitat degradation and loss and trade (VED & al. 2003a, 2003b). RAWAT(in litt. 2005) confirms that populations have declined drastically in many places. Selective logging, harvestfor small-scale subsistence and fires are considered the main threats followed by harvesting for domesticuse, human induced habitat loss and degradation (RAWAT in litt. 2005).
A CAMP workshop held in Nepal in 2001 classified Nepal’s population of T. wallichiana as Endangered,2001 due to a reduction in population size and decrease in range caused by exploitation (ANON.
2001a). Exploitation for wood shingles in rural areas was considered a major threat in Nepal in the mid1990s (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Following consultation with representatives from the CITES Scientific Authority, Nepal’s CITES Management Authority stated that they considered the species to be threatened in thewild in Nepal (SHARMA in litt. 2006).
The population size in Pakistan is very small and declining rapidly due to overharvesting including for use
as fuel according to IUCN PAKISTAN (in litt. 2005), with habitat transformation due to alteration in forest
composition from selective logging, forest clearing, agriculture expansion also considered a threat. AHMAD(in litt. 2005) is not aware of any scientific studies of the species’ status within Pakistan, but agrees that itis declining in terms of population size and areas of occupancy. He considers the main threats to be: harvest for fodder, harvest of aerial parts for paclitaxel production, illegal harvest to supply markets (presumably for paclitaxel), harvest for fuelwood and timber, and conversion of land for agriculture. He notesthat illegal harvest of the species has declined significantly since 2001 owing to effective enforcement of
harvest controls. He also notes surveys showing that there is little regeneration of fodder species such as
T. wallichiana in areas where grazing is allowed. Loss of habitat through unsustainable use of associatedspecies, mainly Quercus dilatata, Abies pindrow, Pinus wallichiana and Picea smithiana, which are extracted for fuelwood, and Juglans regia, illegally extracted for its commercially important root bark, is alsoa threat. In some areas such harvests are diminishing the canopy and the soil moisture content, thereby
affecting regeneration of T. wallichiana. Lack of management policies and tenure conflicts, the species’
limited genetic diversity, slow growth rate and narrow ecological amplitude are key factors leading to declines (AHMAD in litt. 2005). The species is endangered in the Galliyat areas of Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) due to its extensive and poorly managed use (AHMED & al. 2004).
In northern Viet Nam, Taxus spp. occur as scattered individuals or in small clumps and populations are
regarded as “vulnerable”, although total population sizes are difficult to estimate. In southern Viet Nam,
Taxus populations are small and highly fragmented due to extensive clearance resulting from changes inland use; these populations are regarded as “endangered” (THOMAS & LUU NGUYEN DUC 2004). Both
T. chinensis and T. wallichiana are included in the most recent Red Data Book of Viet Nam (PHAN THUC
VAT 1996).
T. wallichiana has been described as “rare” in Bhutan (PRADHAN 1993).
Medicinal uses
Plant parts used for medicinal purposes: bark, leaves.
For at least several centuries the young shoots, leaves and bark of T. wallichiana have been used for their
medicinal properties. In India extracts from bark and leaves are used in Unani medicine as a source of the
drug zarnab, prescribed as a sedative and aphrodisiac and for the treatment of bronchitis, asthma, epilepsy, snake bites and scorpion stings (ANON. 1976, BECKSTROM-STERNBERG & DUKE 1993, PUROHIT & al.
2001, RIKHARI & al. 1998). In Ayurvedic medicine, young shoots are used to prepare a medicinal tincture
for the treatment of headache, diarrhoea and biliousness. The leaves are also used for the treatment ofhysteria, epilepsy and nervousness. Bark and leaves are considered to possess anti-fertility properties(TRAFFIC India 1998). It has been used in steam baths to treat rheumatism (DUKE 1992). A paste madefrom the bark is also used to treat fractures and headaches (GAUR 1999). The inhabitants of the buffer

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

115zone villages of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in India collect Taxus bark and leaves mainly for traditional teas and for curing colds and coughs, a practice also common in other rural areas (MAIKHURI & al.
1998, MANANDHAR 2002). Two herbal formulations using T. wallichiana are manufactured in India(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). Extracts are also used in medicinal hair oils. In Pakistan, decoction of the stem isused against tuberculosis (AHMED & al. 2004). Only a small fraction (ca. 1000 kg) of the total amounts
harvested are used in traditional medicine in that country (AHMAD in litt. 2005).
Taxus wallichiana is, along with other Taxus species, the source of taxanes, a group of compounds ofwhich one, paclitaxel, has proved effective in the treatment of certain cancers, particularly ovarian andbreast cancers, and AIDS-related Karposi's sarcoma. Paclitaxel was discovered by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the bark of the North American species Pacific Yew Taxus brevifolia and demonstrated to have cancer-fighting properties. Further research was conducted by the US National Institutesof Health, and a private-sector partner sought to further develop and market paclitaxel. The pharmaceutical company Bristol Meyers Squibb (BMS) was selected in this regard, and subsequently brought paclitaxel to the market under the trade name Taxol® (MCCOY 2004, US GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE
2003). Concern regarding the sustainability of T. brevifolia harvests and the availability of supplies needed
to produce paclitaxel spurred development of methods to synthesize paclitaxel from another taxane (10Deactylbaccatin III or 10-DAB), found in other Taxus species, including T. wallichiana. This new development not only increased the number of species from which to derive paclitaxel, but also expanded theextraction of taxanes to leaves, a more sustainable source of taxanes than bark. Although leaves areneeded in large quantities, methods of extraction have become increasingly efficient (SCHIPPMAN 2001).
By 1993, the amount of Taxus bark required to yield one kilogramme of paclitaxel was said to have been
reduced from approximately 13 500 kg to 6800 kg, the equivalent of the bark of some 1000 trees(SHELDON & al. 1997). According to BEDI & al. (1996), 7272 kg of bark were required to produce one kilogramme of paclitaxel. PHILLIPS & DWYER (1999) calculated production of one kilogramme of paclitaxel torequire 10 000 kg of bark or approximately 3000 trees. According to a more recent estimate, three tons ofleaves are required to make one kilogramme of paclitaxel (MCCOY 2004).
The number of paclitaxel manufacturers and of paclitaxel and other taxane-based drugs has expanded inrecent years. This is in part owing to the entry into the market of generic paclitaxel drugs, and in part to thedevelopment of new treatments. For example, the anti-cancer treatment Taxotere® is based on docetaxel,
derived from 10-DAB, and in 2004 was considered a faster-growing drug than paclitaxel in US markets(MCCOY 2004). In January 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration approved Abraxane®, made byattaching paclitaxel molecules to albumin protein, for the treatment of breast cancer (POLLACK 2005). Paclitaxel has also been used as a coating in coronary stents (FOREMAN 2002).
BEDI & al. (1996) projected world demand for paclitaxel to be 700 kg per year. This appears to have been
an overestimate; global demand for paclitaxel in 2004 was estimated at 400 kg per year (MCCOY 2004).
However, while the US market was described as “stagnant”, the European market was expected to expand with the entry into the market of generic products (MCCOY 2004). Further growth in the global market
for paclitaxel is expected, with a prediction that it will climb to over 1000 kg per year by 2008, according to
one Canadian paclitaxel producer (MCCOY 2004).
Similar species. Besides the North American Taxus brevifolia and the European T. baccata, a number of
Asian species other than T. wallichiana, such as T. chinensis and T. cuspidate, are the source of taxanes
from which paclitaxel can be derived chemically. T. wallichiana was said by BASYAL & al. (1997) to containhigher amounts of taxane compounds than T. brevifolia and T. media (the latter a hybrid). The bark of
T. yunnanensis [considered T. wallichiana yunnanensis by FARJON] contains 0.02%-0.03% paclitaxel, andshoots/small branches contain ~ 0.01% paclitaxel (WANG & al. 2004). Other genera such as Cephalotaxus
yield similar compounds with medicinal qualities (FARJON & PAGE 1999). According to a Chinese manufacturer of paclitaxel, T. baccata, T. brevifolia and T. yunnanensis supply most of the trade, and market research suggests T. canadensis and T. media are also important sources (TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA
2004).
In 2004, four more Asian yew species were included in CITES Appendix II: T. chinensis, T. cuspidata,
T. fuana and T. sumatrana (and all infraspecific taxa of these species i.e.: T. chinensis var. chinensis,
T. chinensis var. mairei, T. cuspidata var. cuspidata). T. sumatrana occurs in the Philippines and Indonesia (Sulawesi and Sumatra) and T. chinensis var marei in Viet Nam (FARJON 2001). T. cuspidata andT. cuspidata var. cuspidata occur in China, Republic of Korea, Japan and (Far East) Russia. T. chinensis,
T. chinensis var. chinensis and T. fuana can be found in China.
Other uses. The wood is valued for its strength, durability, decay resistance and decorative characteristics. It is used locally for cabinet making, furniture, veneers, parquet floors, gates, and roofs (IUCN &116

Taxus wallichiana

TRAFFIC 1994, OLDFIELD & al. 1998). In Pakistan T. wallichiana is the species most preferred as a sourceof timber for roofing traditional houses; the wood is also used in Pakistan to make furniture and grave coverings (AHMAD in litt. 2005). The species is also used for roof shingles in rural areas in Nepal (AMATYA inlitt. 2005). The Tolchha and Marcha Bhotia and other indigenous people in the Indian Himalayas use thewood for carving, house construction and construction of beehives (PUROHIT & al. 2001). In China, wood isharvested (illegally) when trees have reached the age of 25 for use in furniture, boats and sculptures andcups sold to tourists. In Viet Nam, where the wood of Taxus spp. is valued for its water and rot resistance,
T. wallichiana is used for water wheel paddles (VU VAN DUNG 1996). T. wallichiana is also a valued sourceof fuel-wood in Pakistan, its wood considered second in quality only to that of Oak Quercus spp. in thatcountry (AHMAD in litt. 2005).
The leaves are used as fodder in Pakistan, particularly in winter and early spring, when the snows reduce
access to grazing (AHMAD in litt. 2005, KHAN in litt. 2005), and also grazed by livestock. They are used forthatching by the Tolchha and Marcha Bhotia and other indigenous people in the Indian Himalayas(PUROHIT & al. 2001). Ripened fruits (the red, cup-shaped aril, not the seeds, which are toxic) are eaten inrural Nepal and Pakistan (AHMED & al. 2004, MANANDHAR 2002). Leaves are also used to produce beverages (teas) known as Namkin Chay in India in the buffer areas of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve(PUROHIT & al. 2001).
Harvesting and processing. Bark and more recently leaves and twigs of Taxus wallichiana and other
Taxus species are harvested for extraction of paclitaxel, 10-DAB and other taxanes. In 2004 the majorityof paclitaxel manufacturing facilities are located in China (a T. wallichiana range State) and the USA, withmuch smaller numbers in Canada. Manufacturing facilities are also found in India (also a range State) andseveral European countries (TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA 2004).
The main collection areas in China are located in the southwest, especially Yunnan and Sichuan, between 1000 and 1500 m altitude (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt. 2005). As this elevation is lower than the altitude that T. wallichiana is believed to occur at elsewhere in its range, it seems possible that this refers to
all Taxus species rather than specifically T. wallichiana. Harvest takes place year round (TRAFFIC EASTASIA in litt. 2005). Given the 2003 ban on harvest of Taxus species (see legislation), any current harvest
would presumably be illegal.
It is estimated that a total of 2000 t of leaves and twigs and 5000-10 000 t of bark were collected in Yunnan until 1997 (presumably on an annual basis), with highly detrimental impacts on the populations (XU1997). Clarification is required to confirm whether this is a total figure or an annual estimate.
According to LU (1998), production of one kilogramme of paclitaxel would require the bark of seedlings
aged three years or more from a 1.6 ha plantation. Preliminary processing to produce a paste for futurerefining could be undertaken by rural enterprises (two existed in western Sichuan at the time of writing,and a third, in Maoxian County, was under development), with final processing undertaken by primaryprocessing factories. Cultivation does not yet supply significant amounts of plant materials for extraction,according to staff within China’s CITES Management Authority, with the result that raw materials need to
be imported. These include both raw materials and also partially processed extracts, which are further
refined in China (ZHAI 2005).
China is now believed to be one of the world’s main producers of paclitaxel (ZHANG & al. 2004). According
to XU (1997), T. wallichiana was mainly processed in Yunnan during the 1990s, where an extraction company with a capacity of producing 150 kg of paclitaxel annually was established in 1995, this company
requiring 500 t of dried leaves or bark per year. ZHANG & al. (2004) give a more conservative figure, stating that China’s annual production was approximately 50 kg per year, or roughly 10% of global production.
Production of paclitaxel increased in 2003 as more factories were established and imports increased(ZHANG & al. 2004).
The website of a paclitaxel manufacturer based in Sichuan Province, China indicated that T. baccata,
T. brevifolia and T. yunnanensis [T. wallichiana] were the most commonly grown and harvested species
for paclitaxel production. A UK-based company informed TRAFFIC that it extracts paclitaxel fromT. yunnanensis [T. wallichiana], the North American species T. brevifolia, and T. media, a North American
cultivar. The company said they used both cultivated and wild material to produce the drug (TRAFFICNORTH AMERICA 2004).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

117

The main harvesting areas in India are the cool temperate zones between 2200-3000 m, mainly in
Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh (where the species was assessed in 2003 as Endangered2001) Harvesting takes place all year around, preferably when the tree is tall and mature, 15-20 years old (RAWAT inlitt. 2005). Trade figures compiled by the Arunachal Pradesh State Forest Department based on royalty
fee payments give an indication of the scale of earlier harvests in that state (Table 1).
Table 1. Reported legal tradein T. wallichiana in
Arunachal PradeshYear

1993/1994
1994/1995
1995/1996
1996/1997
1997/1998

Amount legally
traded(t dry weight)
586
1674
52
0
82

Taxus is processed on an industrial scale within India for the production of Ayurvedic medicines as well as extraction of taxanes such as
paclitaxel for (re-)export. Paclitaxel extraction was reported as taking
place during the 1990s, for instance by Indo-Italian companies, forexport to the USA (CHAUHAN 1999), and appears to be expanding.
India is believed to be one of the world’s main producers of paclitaxel, with exports of this and the related taxane docetaxel recorded
in India’s Customs data indicating the scale of processing. Processing is now said to involve primarily, if not entirely, imported T. baccata (JAIN in litt. 2005).

From 1997 to 2000 PUROHIT & al. (2001) studied the impact of bark
removal for traditional use (as a tea) on survival of T. wallichiana in
Source: HANDIQUE & al. (2000).
the buffer zone of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Garhwal,
India. The average collection of bark per family per year was about
1.7±0.3 kg dry weight, with weight harvested varying according to family size. Poor families relied on thebark of this species for tea year-round and consumed all they collected, whereas rich families also distributed bark to their kin living elsewhere. There was no organized market for selling Taxus bark in the area.
In the study area, the bark of T. baccata is peeled off from the main stem with a sharp sickle. The quantityof bark removed averaged 0.4-1 kg dry weight for trees with girths of 0.5-0.9 m; some 712 kg was collected each year, representing 712-1780 trees. Tree survival rates were linked to the depth and extent(percentage of the circumference) to which the bark was cut. Survival rates were maximum when bark
was removed to a depth of 0.2 cm in a scattered manner, and minimum when bark was removed beyond
the limit of average bark thickness (0.43 cm) or as a whole ring on the trunk (PUROHIT & al. 2001), i.e.
girdling. RAWAT (in litt. 2005) confirms that girdling can cause death of the tree.
A second study in this area found that 4.96±0.65 kg of Taxus products were harvested per household peryear in the core zone, and 3.92±1.21 kg per year per household away from the core zone (MAIKHURI & al.
2000). The study did not indicate whether this included leaves, bark or a combination.
In Nepal, T. wallichiana is mainly harvested and traded under the name “Lauth Salla”, but is also referred
to as “Talispatra” and “Thingre Salla". The main parts harvested are leaves and twigs, but bark is also
harvested. Harvest takes place in 15 districts, with summer being the preferred harvesting season(AMATYA in litt. 2005). Harvesters can collect up to 72 kg of fresh leaves (equivalent to 36 kg of dry leaves)
per day (PAUDEL & ROSSET 1998). According to PHILLIPS & DWYER (1999) the yield of leaf clippings varies
from 15-25 kg per tree (fresh weight). Harvest figures provided by Dabur Nepal Private Ltd. (in VANTOMME& al. 2002) are as follows: 1995, 60 t; 1996, 142 t; 1997, 302 t; 1998, 289 t; 2000, 185 t. Those for fiscal
years 1999/2000-2003/04 are provided in Table 2, based on records of forest royalty fees from Nepal’s
Department of Forests. It is not clear whether this includes leaves and twigs only or also bark. Reported
harvests reached a peak of over 500 t in 2001/02. Cultivation schemes underway in Nepal are also likely
to be an increasing source of Taxus leaves and bark. Most of the leaves are used for chemical extraction(of crude extracts) by two companies (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
Table 2. Reported harvest and sale of T. wallichiana in Nepal
Lauth salla
1999/2000
Quantity (kg dry weight)

2000/2001

177 896416 389

2001/2002

2002/2003

507 222

2003/2004

285 41478 472Thingure salla and Talispatra*
Quantity (kg dry weight)
Total

5 400

4 000

-

1 000

200
*1 500183 296420 389

507 022286 41480 172

Source: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forests, Nepal.

It is estimated that 30 000 tons of leaves were illegally extracted from 1996 to 2001 in Pakistan, on average 6000 tons per year (AMIN & al. 2004). No significant extraction has been recorded since 2001 as a118

Taxus wallichiana

result of enforcement of harvest bans (AHMAD in litt. 2005). Harvesters sort the leaf-bearing shoots fromthe branches before onward sale to middlemen, who separate the leaves from the shoots, dry and packthem. Regional traders sort the leaves according to quality for onward sale to wholesalers and exporters.
There is no pharmaceutical extraction of taxanes within Pakistan (AHMAD in litt. 2005).
There are no extraction facilities for Taxus in Viet Nam (THOMAS & LUU NGUYEN DUC 2004).
Cultivation. Much of the information regarding cultivation of Taxus for production of taxanes is not specific with regard to the species involved. In countries where more than one species occurs, e.g. China, it
seems likely that cultivation efforts are not focused entirely or perhaps even predominantly on
T. wallichiana. Even in countries where T. wallichiana is the dominant native species, it could be that nonnative species or cultivars are being cultivated. The following text should therefore not be considered as
referring specifically to T. wallichiana, except where specified.
Cultivation efforts during the 1990s were focused on breeding for higher yields of paclitaxel and improved
propagation techniques (IUCN & TRAFFIC 1994, SHELDON & al. 1997), and it seems likely that this remains the case today. Propagation can be via stem cuttings or through seed; the latter is considered time
consuming, owing to the long dormancy of the seeds (one year) and the slow growth of plants. The aim ofexperiments with mass macro-propagation of elite plants is to obtain optimal harvest of clippings fromcloned trees closely planted together. Cultivation trials also include other species like T. baccata,
T. cuspidata and T. chinensis (BEDI & al. 1996, RIKHARI & al. 1998, SHELDON & al. 1997).
In recent years a number of studies have been conducted to understand the regeneration of the tree andto explore cultivation in China. Cultivation studies for Taxus spp. were undertaken in the early 1990s inwestern Sichuan, and methods to produce seedlings on a large scale via grafting developed (LU 1998).
Grafting has proved a successful method of propagating T. wallichiana in Xizang (DA & JIN 2003). Progress has been made in the cultivation of T. chinensis var. mairei using seeds for propagation. Researchers have found a way to reduce the long seed dormancy from one year to around 20 days by increasing
soil temperature (FANG & al. 2000). According to ZHANG & al. (2004), Taxus plantation development has
thus far not been very successful owing to slow growth rates and low paclitaxel content. It appears thatsignificant investment is being made in such development, however. No significant difference between
paclitaxel content between wild-collected and cultivated plants has been found according to WANG & al.
(2004).
RIKHARI & al. (1998) call for initiatives to improve seed germination and cloning to address the urgent needfor reforestation and cultivation for commercial purposes in India, and note that efforts initiated at that time
included: (1) Development of a simple, relatively cheap technique for vegetative propagation (cloning)
using first year shoots and chemical treatments (NANDI & al. 1996); (2) Transfer of cloned plants (cuttings)
to the study site (increased survival, 50% instead of 42%, was recorded over a period of two years in natural Taxus habitat at Jageshwar); (3) Enhancement (70%) of ‘seed’ germination (normally 8-15%) by various treatments (PANDEY & al. (unpubl.). They proposed that the above mentioned techniques could beapplied to propagate selected plants from other parts of the Himalayas, containing higher levels of paclitaxel, for conservation and afforestation.
Propagation protocols for tissue culture of the species have been developed (SAMANT & al. 1998) andinformation packs provided by research institutes. These include guidelines on determination of suitable
cultivation areas for Taxus, fast regeneration using seeds (within 4-5 months) and clonal propagation
through layering and stem cutting, productive and economic plantations, ensuring regular harvests ofleaves and twigs, and training of personnel (ANON. 2002a). Cultivation is being promoted by the State
Governments of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Uttaranchal (ALAM 2004).
As natural regeneration is slow and difficult, artificial propagation is preferred in Nepal, in particularthrough stem cuttings (AMATYA in litt. 2005). Taxus cultivation has been supported by a commercial
greenhouse facility initially planned to have a capacity of 600 000 plants per year, to be accompanied byan outgrower programme and training for rural harvesters. It was estimated that 3600 t of leaves would be
produced annually after 10 years (PHILLIPS & DWYER 1999). Seedling production was reported by Dabur
Nepal Private Ltd, to be 160 953 in 1999 and 185 000 in 2000 (VANTOMME & al. 2002). Dabur was said tobe growing over 800 000 Taxus baccata [sic] saplings on plantations on leased lands in Nepal in 2002,
with the expectation that in another five or six years the company would be collecting from its plantations,for which it would require approximately 10 million trees (ANON. 2002b).
Taxus wallichiana is not cultivated commercially on any significant scale in Pakistan (AHMAD in litt. 2005,
KHAN in litt. 2005). However, it may have been grown experimentally in some research institutes, e.g. theForest Institute of Peshawar (KHAN in litt. 2005).

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

119Some research into propagation methods has been carried out by the Forest Science Institute in southern
Viet Nam, and there is a strong interest in the establishment of plantations. Field gene banks derived fromlocally sourced material have been set up as part of a conservation and utilization programme (NGHIA
2000).
National market. Information provided by ZHANG & al. (2004) indicated that as well as producing Taxus
extracts for export, there is a domestic market for paclitaxel within China, with exports being lower thandomestic production. Imports of finished paclitaxel products were reported from the USA between 2000
and 2003. With harvests of native Taxus banned in 2003 and cultivation not yet producing significant
yields, most of China’s market is apparently now supplied via imports, and, to a lesser extent, confiscatedspecimens (see below).
A 1997 market survey by TRAFFIC INDIA showed that T. wallichiana was commonly traded at the national
level at that time in India including in the markets of Delhi, Kolkata (previously Calcutta), Mumbai, Amritsar, and Haridwar. Rough estimates of the annual turnover at the Delhi market ranged from 300-700 t,
with demand said to exceed supply. Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir were said to be the main
source of T. wallichiana sold on the Delhi market (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). However, trade data for Arunachal Pradesh (Table 1) indicate that it was also a significant, albeit declining, source of T. wallichiana in
trade. The species was said to be easily available in Kolkata (previously Calcutta), with one trader reporting imports from Bhutan. Acacia leaves were said to be mixed with T. wallichiana according to market
sources in Mumbai (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). Delhi, Kolkata (previously Calcutta) and Amritsar are now said
to be the main market centres of the trade, from which the material is distributed to smaller markets (JAINin litt. 2005). According to a survey of traditional healers in Kameng district, Arunachal Pradesh, in 2005
local collectors received INR4 (USD0.8) per kilogramme of T. wallichiana, which was subsequently sold at
nearby markets for INR35/kg (USD0.09/kg) (ANON. 2001b). The price paid for leaves (dry weight) in India
was reported to be INR35-40/kg (USD0.8-0.9/kg) in 2005 (JAIN in litt. 2005).
Total demand for the species within India was previously estimated at 500 t (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). There
were at least three companies in Himachal Pradesh that extracted paclitaxel from Taxus leaves and thebark in the late 1990s, their demand estimated at 120-150 t annually. The Dabur Research Foundation
estimated the demand by the Ayurvedic industry to be significantly less than this, only 23.6 t annually(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998). A single natural products company reported requiring six tonnes of T. baccata(presumably T. wallichiana) raw materials in the 12-month period from April 1999-March 2000
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PLANNING COMMISSION 2000).
According to one estimate in relation to the period 1996-2001, Taxus collectors in Pakistan received
PKR1000/t (USD20/t) for fresh foliage. Local middleman received PKR6000/t (USD120/t) and regional
traders PKR10 000/t (USD200/t) (AMIN & al. 2004). The main commercial trading centres for this species
are found in Mingora Swat, Lahore and Karachi (AHMAD in litt. 2005).
International trade. The centre of demand for finished products made from paclitaxel and related compounds continues to be within the USA and, to an increasing extent, in Europe (MCCOY 2004. The US
Scientific Authority believes that the bulk of Taxus trade consists of Asian rather than North American
species (TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA 2004). It therefore seems likely that at least some T. wallichiana is intrade to North America, either as raw materials or, more likely, as chemical derivatives following processing in India, China, or perhaps other range States.
Despite the listing of T. wallichiana in CITES Appendix II in 1995, little of this trade has been recorded in
CITES data (Table 3). This reflects a combination of the relatively low level of CITES implementation forthis and many other CITES-listed medicinal plant species, and, more specifically, the exclusion of chemical derivatives from the CITES listing between 2000 and 2005 (see below under ‘Regulation of international trade’).
Following China’s ban on Taxus harvests, Taxus used for extraction of paclitaxel was increasingly imported from other countries. An estimated 300 t of bark was imported in 2003 according to ZHANG & al.
(2004), this figure apparently based on an assumption that imported materials contained between 0.010.02% paclitaxel. China’s CITES annual report data show the import of 500 t of bark of T. wallichiana during that year, all from Myanmar. The bark was reported as being from cultivated sources. China’s annual
reports also showed the import of 50 t of extracts from Myanmar, reported to have originated from wild
sources. Although China’s Management Authority believed that the information in the annual report wascorrect (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt. 2005), Myanmar’s CITES Scientific Authority stated that no permits had
been issued for the harvest or export of this species. There had therefore been correspondence with
China’s CITES authorities regarding fraudulent CITES permits, and the matter had been brought to theattention of the CITES Secretariat by both Myanmar and China (KHIN in litt. 2005).
120

Taxus wallichiana

According to the Director of the Shanghai branch of China’s CITES Management Authority, most of theTaxus materials imported for the production of paclitaxel come from the USA and Canada, with importing
companies saying that the specimens come from plantations (TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA 2004.). Morerecently, Management Authority staff advised that almost all material used to extract paclitaxel in China
has increasingly been imported from other countries, primarily Canada, with small quantities imported
from Germany, and no materials imported from India or Nepal (ZHAI 2005).
Table 3. CITES-reported trade in Taxus wallichiana (1997-2003)
Year Country Country Origin
ofofExport Import

ExportQuantity Unit
1997

CL

DE

??

1997

DE

CL

??

1999

CN

1999

Term

Import

P

S

200

g

Derivatives

E

U

ID

2000

kg

Derivatives

T

W

CN

IN

2000

kg

Derivatives

T

W

1999

IT

MT

2000

CN

KR

200

g

Extract

T

W

2000

CN

US

55

kg

Extract

T

W

2000

CN

US

615

g

Extract

T

W

2000

DE

CH

2001

CN

US

38

kg

Extract

T

W

2001

IN

IT

100

kg

Leaves

T

A

2002

CN

US

1

g

Extract

T

W

2002

CN

US

3

kg

Extract

T

W

2003

MM

2003

MM

BT

Quantity Unit

Term

P

S

200

Derivatives

E

U

1

Live

T

I

1

Specimens

g

A

100

kg

LeavesTW

CN

500 000

kg

Bark

T

A

CN

50 000kg

Extract

T

W

Source: CITES annual report data compiled by UNEP-WCMC.

In line with the above, many Chinese manufacturers of paclitaxel claim to source their raw materials from
North American Taxus species and plantations, but it is not clear to what extent this is the case (TRAFFICNORTH AMERICA 2004). In 2003, two Chinese companies contacted a US company requesting the purchase of an estimated 20 [shipping] containers of T. brevifolia per year. The US company, which has beencultivating the species since 1998, provides materials in the form of ground ‘tops’ (above-ground parts),
ground whole plants (tops and bottoms dried separately but ground and mixed together) and roots(TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA in litt. 2005).
China also imported finished paclitaxel products during the years 2000 to 2003, with an estimated importvalue of around USD2.92 million, USD11.14 million, USD7 million and USD12.38 million (ZHANG & al.
2004). It is not known whether any of these imports would have involved products derived fromT. wallichiana.
China’s CITES annual report data show the export of significant quantities of T. wallichiana derivatives
from 1999-2003 (see Table 3), the most significant record being the export of two tonnes of derivatives
each to India and Indonesia. It seems likely that this would have represented semi-processed materials
rather than purified paclitaxel. Exports reported in CITES data in subsequent years were of much lower
quantities. No extract exports were reported in 2003, reflecting recognition by China’s CITES Management
Authority that extracts were not covered by the CITES listing (TRAFFIC EAST ASIA in litt. 2005).
According to ZHANG & al. (2004), China exported a total of 143 kg of paclitaxel (99.9% pure) to westerncountries (mainly the USA) from 2000-2003, as follows: 2000, 39 kg; 2001, 48 kg; 2002, 21 kg; 2003,
35 kg. The decline in exports in 2002 is said to have corresponded with strengthened management within
China, and the increase in 2003 to the opening of new processing factories and increased import of raw
materials.
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

121Table 4. Exports of paclitaxel and docetaxel recorded in India’s Customs data (t)*(1999/2000-2004/2005)
ImporterArgentina
BahrainBarbados
BrazilBelarus
Colombia
Cuba
Denmark
Ethiopia
Germany
Georgia
Ghana
Guadeloupe
GuatemalaHong Kong
Iran
Jordan
Kenya
Malaysia
Mauritius
MexicoNepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
P. N. Guinea
Philippines
PolandRussian Federation
Slovenia
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Surinam
Switzerland
Tanzania Rep.
ThailandTogo
TrinidadUkraineUSA
Venezuela
Viet Nam
ZambiaTotal

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004
2004/2005
0.15

0.10
0.30
8.68
0.20

2.48
0.43

0.60
1.80
0.06
3.00

0.32
0.18
0.01

0.02
0.50
0.30

0.68

4.20
0.10
0.74
0.10
22.00

0.23
2.36
0.04
0.35

2.19
0.17

0.10
0.08
1.00
0.15
1.00

1.36

0.20
0.31
0.00
0.03
0.22

1.30

0.54
0.15

0.01
0.10
1.30

2.85

0.01
1.87

0.90

3.10
0.10

4.37

27.76

1.01
0.25
3.90

5.68

1.52
0.14

0.90

0.01
0.59

1.50

21.58

11.60

* Although the data source indicates the following figures are in thousands of kilogrammes (tonnes), it seems more
likely that they represent kilogrammes. Source: India Department of Commerce Export Import Databank, Categories
30049044 PACLITAXEL and DOCETAXEL.

In India, the export of Taxus wallichiana has been prohibited through its listing on the Negative List ofExports since March 1996 (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), and possibly as early as March 1994 (LANGE &WÄCHTER 1996). India is estimated to have exported 5500 t of leaves during 1994 (SHELDON & al. 1997).
MOLUR & WALKER (1998) report that according to 1995 data of the ‘Botanical Survey of India’ 170 710 kgof dried leaves were exported from the state of Arunachal Pradesh in a single month (it is possible that
this represents trade within India). From 1994-1996, the main producer of 10-DAB, the Italian company
Indena, relied heavily on T. wallichiana plant materials from India (SHELDON & al. 1997) but subsequently
122

Taxus wallichiana

switched to using cultivated T. baccata. In 2001, 100 kg of leaves from cultivated sources were reported
as exported by India, Italy reporting the import as wild sourced. No other exports are reported in India’s
CITES annual reports.
Paclitaxel extraction was reported as taking place within India in the 1990s, for instance by Indo-Italiancompanies, for export to the USA (CHAUHAN 1999). India’s Customs data show the export of both paclitaxel and docetaxel beginning in 1999/2000 (Table 4). Although exports are reported in units of ‘thousandsof kilogrammes’, it seems more likely that the units are in fact kilogrammes, i.e. 21.58 kg in 2003/04, and11.60 kg from April 2004-June 2005. According to CITES Management Authority staff, exports involve
extracts from imported T. baccata rather than from native or imported T. wallichiana, and are permitted in
trade based on corresponding evidence of previous T. baccata imports; T. wallichiana is not believed to beexported in any form. Other sources have also stated that Taxus is imported in large quantities for processing (JAIN in litt. 2005). The establishment of additional companies for the manufacture and/or marketingof taxane-based drugs within India could result in an increase in international trade in paclitaxel and otherderivatives, some of which may derive from T. wallichiana. In 2001, for example, a US-based company
announced that its India-based subsidiary was entering into an agreement with a China-based manufacturer of paclitaxel from propagated T. yunnanensis (XECHEM INTERNATIONAL 2001).
In Nepal, although export of leaves was banned in 1993 (MANANDHAR 1994), annual exports increased in
response to the ban of exports from India. Since 1995, when Taxus wallichiana was listed on CITES Appendix II, only export of Taxus spp. processed in Nepal has been allowed. The total exports of leaves
increased during 1995-1997, from 60 t to 360 t (PHILLIPS & DWYER 1999). No CITES permits were issued
for these exports and no trade with Nepal is recorded in the CITES trade database.
KHAN (in litt. 2005) believes that Taxus wallichiana has not been exploited commercially for international
trade in Pakistan, though states that domestic use as fodder and fuel is common.
Illegal harvest and trade. Illegal harvest to support domestic extraction is thought to have been the maincause for the dramatic population declines in China (WANG & YANG 1999). According to VITI & al. (2001),
illegally harvested Taxus was frequently confiscated by Government authorities, sometimes misdeclared
as processed material originally imported from North America or as T. wallichiana, when in fact anotherspecies was involved (GOVERNMENTS OF CHINA AND THE USA 2004, ZHOU 2001). Chinese authorities makethe seized plant material available to domestic extraction facilities (GOVERNMENTS OF CHINA AND THE USA
2004).
Illegal harvest has also been reported in India, and was the main reason behind India’s CITES listing proposal for T. wallichiana. Illegal extraction of T. wallichiana is said to take place in several protected areas
in Uttaranchal: the Wildlife Sanctuaries of Askot and Kedarnath, and Nanda Devi and Govind Pashu Vihar
National Parks (RAWAT in litt. 2005). Two shipments of Taxus wallichiana destined for Singapore (2 kg)
and Malaysia (75 kg) were confiscated in 2001; the commodities in trade were not specified (CITESMANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2002).
Following the ban on exports of raw materials from Nepal, and its apparent misinterpretation by somegovernment staff as also relating to processed products, illegal export of T. wallichiana leaves was noted
in a study of the medicinals trade in the Malekhukhola watershed area (PANDIT & THAPA 2004). The illegal
extraction and trade of T. wallichia foliage in Pakistan under different trade names (Jari Bootian) in recent
years is said to have damaged the species (AMIN & al. 2004).

Legislation and regulations
Regulation of harvest, manufacture and domestic trade. A series of regulations implementing CITES
within China, the Import and Export Regulations of Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora, came into effect on 1
September 2006. In addition, other laws contribute to the implementation of the Convention in this country.
China’s Law of Wild Plant Protection took effect 1 January 1997. Under this law, protected plant species
are classified into those of “national key significance” and those of “local key significance”. Protected plant
species of national key significance are further divided into Category I and Category II-protected species.
Trade in Category I-protected species is not allowed. Trade in plant species listed as Category II is subject
to authorization by the relevant government agencies at the provincial/autonomous region level. All species of Taxus have been listed as Category I Protected Species in China since 1999, with harvest of thisand other native Taxus species prohibited since that year except with the authorization of the State Forestry Administration. The State Forestry Administration banned all harvest of wild Taxus in 2003 (XU in litt.
2005). The State Forestry Administration, the Ministry of Agriculture and other authorized governmental
authorities at the provincial/autonomous region level are responsible for enforcing the Law of Wild Plant
Protection. The Native Flora Protection Act outlines rules for protection and management of native flora,
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species123but does not establish requirements with regard to the size of specimens allowed to be harvested(MACIVOR & PETERS 2000).
The main laws governing harvesting of medicinal plants in India are the Indian Forest Act (1927), and, toa lesser extent, the Wildlife (Protection) Act (1927/1991/2002). The Indian Forest Act (1927) consolidates
the law relating to forest produce, the transit thereof and duty thereon, and empowers State Governments
to regulate the transit of forest produce, e.g. medicinal plants. The Act deals specifically with reserved,
protected, and village forests. Almost all the States and Union Territories in India have regulations regarding harvest, transit and trade in medicinal plants. Most have established lists of species banned from harvest from forests (“Negative lists”), which include threatened plants (JAIN 2000).
The Indian Forest Act (1927) has been adopted by most of the States and is directly applicable to the Union Territories of India. The remaining States have enacted State Forest Acts of their own, which arelargely based on the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Acts of the States have been amended from time totime as required. The States have framed Rules under the Acts to protect and preserve the forest wealthof their respective States (JAIN 2000).
The Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules 1977 were amended by a notificationin 1994 and establish “pass/export permit fees” for specified medicinal plants. The trade in some of theimportant and threatened medicinal plants of the State has been restricted or banned. Pass/export permit
fees for Taxus wallichiana in 2000 were INR600/100 kg (USD14/100 kg) (JAIN 2000). In 1996, T. baccata
was designated as a protected species in Sikkim (JAIN 2000), more likely reflecting confusion regarding
species taxonomy rather than protection of a non-native species.
Other states have similarly established local controls and fee structures on domestic trade in native medicinal species (see JAIN 2000 for a state-by-state analysis of legislation relevant to the harvest and tradeof medicinal plants).
Taxus wallichiana occurs in several protected areas in Uttaranchal, India: Wildlife Sanctuaries of Askot
and Kedarnath, and Nanda Devi and Govind Pashu Vihar National Parks (RAWAT in litt. 2005).
Wildlife harvest and domestic trade controls are implemented in Nepal’s national parks, conservation
areas and protected areas via the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973); elsewhere in the
country, implementation is via the Forest Act (1993) and the accompanying Forest Regulation (1995)(AMATYA in litt. 2005, ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000, SHRESTA in litt. 2000). A summary of these and related controls for medicinal plants and other non-timber forest products has been compiled by the Asia
Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) and can be found on their website(BINAYEE undated).
The Forest Act and Regulation stipulate rules pertaining to the collection of forest products. Collection is
authorized via licences issued by District Forest Officers (DFO). Licences are required to specify the collection area, the period in which harvest is to take place, the species and quantities to be collected andmethod of harvest (AMATYA in litt. 2005, ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). Licence applicants are required
to provide this information and specify the purpose of collection. In accordance with the Regulation, District Forest Officers are required to verify the quantity of medicinal plants collected, collect any associatedfees, and issue a “release order”, which is required to transport harvested plants out of the district of origin. The release order should state: the species and quantity transported, the destination and the period inwhich transportation must take place (ARYAL 2000, OLSEN in litt. 2000). There is also a provision to allow
harvest and trade licences to be sold at auction (ARYAL 2000).
In their 2001 study in the Dhading District, PANDIT & THAPA (2004) found that implementation of these licensing provisions was low in government forests, reflecting a combination of a lack of resource management rights among the local population and low government enforcement capacity. Inspection of harvested materials to ensure compliance with licence provisions was considered to be low. Adherence tolicence provisions was similarly found to be low in community forests, where permitting provisions still
applied, but harvest rights were restricted to members of forest user groups. Others have similarly noted
low levels of implementation of national harvest and trade controls for medicinal plants and other nontimber forest products (e.g. see MULLIKEN 2000, OLSEN 2005).
In 1995, the Government banned export of Taxus spp. through publication of a notification in the Nepal
Gazette (under rule 12 and 13 (2) of the Forest Regulation, 1995 on 3 April 1995, which was amended as
mentioned as per Clause 2 of Nepal Gazette vol. 3, Section 51 No. 36, dated 31 December 2001 issued
by MoFSC, HMG/Nepal). The ban excludes export of Taxus spp. in processed form, however, as long as
processed within Nepal and a permission obtained from the Department of Forest, advised by the Department of Plant Resources and Herb Production and Processing Co. Ltd. (AMATYA in litt. 2005).
The harvest of medicinal plants in Pakistan is controlled by the Forest Department.
124

Taxus wallichiana

Three different types of harvest controls were reported as practised (IQBAL 1991, RAPA 1987):•

Leasing the area for collection of medicinal herbs. This method was said to have been used in the
Hazara forests in the North-West Frontier Province;•

Collection by the traders from local people who pay nominal royalties to the Forest Department. Thismethod was said to have been common in the Malakand forests in the North-West Frontier Province;and•Auctioning off fixed quantities, e.g. by the Forest Department in Azad Kashmir.

Before taking plants from the site of collection, the local Divisional Forest Officer must be approached forthe issue of a transport permit, obtainable on the payment of a fixed duty. The size of the consignment
and transport permits are checked at forest exit points. Commercial exploitation from reserved forests isforbidden throughout Pakistan by order of the Inspector General of Forests, Islamabad (MULLIKEN 2000).
Harvesting T. wallichiana is banned and its extraction is totally restricted in Pakistan (AMIN & al. 2004).
Community protected forests in some areas are also contributing to the conservation of the species. The
Manikhel forests in Orakzai Agency are a typical example of the traditionally managed forests, where evena twig of Taxus can not be extracted from the forest. The only use of Taxus branches allowed is for roping
mosques and community meeting places. The forests of Manikhel are intact and are managed by tribal
rules (AMIN & al. 2004).
Regulation of international trade
CITES listing. Taxus wallichiana was included in CITES Appendix II in 1995, following acceptance of alisting proposal put forward by India to the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (Fort
Lauderdale, November 1994). The proposal reflected concern that international trade in leaves and barkto produce paclitaxel was resulting in the decline of the species’ wild populations, particularly in India. The
listing became effective on 16 February 1995, and was annotated with what was at that time Annotation#8: “Designates all parts and derivatives, except: a) seeds and pollen; b) seedlings or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers; c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants; and d) finished pharmaceutical products”. The original listing therefore covered extracts aswell as raw materials in international trade. However, this annotation was changed at CoP 11 (Gigiri, April
2000) following a proposal from Switzerland aimed at harmonizing annotations for medicinal plants withthe effect that chemical derivatives such as paclitaxel were excluded (Annotation #2: Designates all partsand derivatives, except: a) seeds and pollen; b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or
liquid media, transported in sterile containers; c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants; andd) chemical derivatives and finished pharmaceutical products). It became clear in subsequent years, however, that chemical derivatives (extracts) formed a significant share, if not the vast majority, of international
trade in this species in terms of the numbers of wild specimens affected by trade. The Governments ofChina and the USA therefore submitted a proposal to CITES CoP 13 (Bangkok, October 2004) to amend
the annotation, which was accepted. T. wallichiana and other CITES-listed Taxus species (see below) was
subsequently covered by Annotation #10: “Designates all parts and derivatives except: a) seeds and pollen; and b) finished pharmaceutical products”, which entered into effect on 12 January 2005. The annotation applied to Taxus was modified yet again at CITES CoP 14 (The Hague, June 2007), as part of a
Plants Committee process to clarify and harmonise annotations for medicinal plants. The revised annotation, effective 13 September 2007, "Designates all parts and derivatives except: a) seeds and pollen; andb) finished products packaged and ready for retail trade”.
CITES Parties also responded at CITES CoP 13 to the threat to other Asian Taxus species posed by demand for paclitaxel and other taxanes by including a further four Asian Taxus species in CITES Appendix
II (Taxus chinensis, T. cuspidata, T. fuana, T. sumatrana) as well as all infraspecific taxa of these species.
This listing also entered into effect on 12 January 2005.
Export from China of materials derived from native Taxus species originating from the wild is banned(ZHAI 2005); however, clarification is required to see if this also applies to confiscated materials that aresubsequently supplied to manufacturers for extraction purposes. There do not appear to be similar restrictions on the export of materials derived from cultivated specimens or for re-export of material imported
from other countries.
At present, there is no single law formulated specifically to implement CITES within China, however, certain laws contribute to the implementation of the Convention in this country. From 1 January 1998, China’s
regulatory system for the export of wild animals and plants was strengthened by the Endangered Species
Import and Export Management Office (under the State Forest Administration), the designated CITES
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

125

Management Authority, and the Customs Authority. A wide range of animal and plant species are specified in an annex attached to a Joint Notification from the Management Authority and the Customs Authority. This annex is said to be compiled on the basis of the CITES Appendices and lists of key national protected animals and plants. The Notification was amended in February 1999 to include several medicinal
plant species. Trade in live plants, parts in their raw form, and products made from them specified on thesaid list are controlled. Confirmation is required to see if the list has now been amended to include those
Taxus species included in CITES Appendix II at CITES CoP 13 and to reflect the revised annotation for
Taxus species. According to the Joint Notification, where applicable, import/export permits or certificatesare required. Since September 2003, the Government of China has required export documentation for all
Taxus species and subspecies (ANON. 2004b). Import licences are required for the import of Taxus fromother countries. These are issued by the central CITES office in Bejing based on export permit documentation (ZHAI 2005).
In India, the export of wild specimens of Taxus wallichiana sourced from within India has been prohibited
through the species’ listing on the Negative List of Exports since March 1996 (TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), andpossibly as early as March 1994 (LANGE & WÄCHTER 1996). This prohibition would not appear to haveextended to cultivated specimens, TRAFFIC INDIA (1998) having noted that export prohibitions for products produced via cultivation were changed periodically. As will be explained below, it would also appear
that this prohibition would not have extended to finished products, or possibly to chemical derivatives, e.g.
paclitaxel.
CITES is implemented in India through a combination of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972/1991/2002 andthe Export and Import Policy (EXIM) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 andthe Customs Act, 1962. The Wildlife (Protection) Act prohibits export of a number of species, including all
six CITES Appendix I plant species native to India, of which one, Kuth Saussurea lappa, is a medicinal
plant.
Policy on trade in wildlife and wildlife products is established via the EXIM policy, which is revised periodically. The policy, as far as it concerns wildlife, is decided in consultation with the Director of Wildlife Preservation of the Government of India, who is the CITES Management Authority and oversees CITES implementation in the country. The Director has four Regional Deputy Directors and four sub-regional officesof wildlife preservation, these serving as assistant CITES Management Authorities. The EXIM policy is put
into effect via the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act 1992 and enforced
via the Customs Act (CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA in litt. 2004).
The EXIM policy was embedded within a broader Foreign Trade Policy for the period 2004-2009, thischange coming into effect on 1 September 2004. The Foreign Trade Policy aims at doubling India’s shareof global trade and expanding employment opportunities, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas, andincludes a Special Agricultural Produce Scheme, promoting the export of, inter alia, minor forest produce
such as medicinal plants and their value-added products. The policy outlines that all export and import
shall be “free”, e.g. unrestricted, unless regulated under any legislation. Goods imported in accordancewith this policy may be exported in the same form without a licence, provided that there is no import orexport restriction for the items. Even goods restricted for import may be imported under Customs Bond forexport without a licence provided that the items are freely exportable. Specific note is made in the policythat this does not preclude the application of other laws (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE 2004).
Import and export restrictions for specific products are established via India’s ITC (HS) classifications inaccordance with the broader policy. Several categories relevant to CITES-listed species have been identified as goods allowed to be imported without restriction (i.e. free of import duties or quotas), e.g. “medicinal plants, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered” (Schedule 1 Chapter 12), lac, gums,
resins and other vegetable extracts (Schedule 1, Chapter 13), pharmaceutical products (Schedule 1,
Chapter 30) and essential oils (Schedule 1, Chapter 33). Although instructions under the EXIM policy for
1997-2002 stipulated that imports of plants, products and derivatives were subject to CITES provisions(TRAFFIC INDIA 1998), the low levels of trade data for imports of CITES-listed species into India indicatethat these provisions were not implemented effectively.
It does not appear that any CITES-related import controls were established via the policy for 2004-2009
until early 2006, nor that these existed under other legislation (with the exception of Saussurea lappa),
with the effect that imports of CITES-listed medicinal plant species was uncontrolled. However, on
6 February 2006 the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items were amended such that importsof Rauvolfia spp. (all species) are to be subject to CITES provisions (Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce Notification No. 42 RE-2005/2004-09). Similar amendments were made for
Kuth (Saussurea lappa) roots, cacti, agarwood and agar oil. This would seem to indicate that CITES tradecontrols are not required for imports of other CITES-listed plant species, however confirmation of this isrequired.
126

Taxus wallichiana

As stipulated in Chapter 12 of the ITC (HS) classifications, the export of plants, plant portions, their derivatives and extracts of species included in CITES Appendix I and II and obtained from the wild is generally
prohibited. Further clarification is required to confirm whether this applies to wild specimens regardless of
their country of origin, or to only those specimens obtained within India. An “Export Licensing Note” appended to Chapter 12 specifies 29 plant taxa for which export is generally prohibited. This list includes
Taxus wallichiana. An exception for both CITES species and those listed in the Licensing Note is made forthe export of “formulations”, defined as including “products which may contain portions/extracts of plantson the prohibited list but only in unrecognizable and physically inseparable form” and “value added formulations as well as herbal Ayurvedic” (Chapter 12, Export Licensing Note 3). It is not clear whether the term“recognizable” is defined per the CITES interpretation of “readily recognizable” such that if the ingredientsof a particular formulation of Ayurvedic medicine are listed on the packaging, then they are considered to
be “recognizable”. The instructions include a note that states that “no certificate from any authorities whatsoever shall be required for their [formulations] export”, implying that no CITES permits would be required
for such exports. This would appear to potentially allow for trade in Taxus wallichiana in violation of CITES
trade controls, which were revised to apply to extracts, and subsequently also to finished products informs other than packaged for final sale. Export Licensing Note 2 states that export permits are required,however it is not clear if this applies only to cultivated specimens, which are allowed to be exported (seebelow) or also to formulations. CITES Management Authority staff have advised that, if Customs staff refera shipment of “formulations” containing CITES-listed species to the Management Authority for clearance,then issuance of a CITES export permit will be required (AARTI in litt. 2005).
A further exception is provided for exports of wild CITES-listed species on a case-by-case basis for “lifesaving drugs”, which could presumably be applied to any medicinal species, and particularly Taxus wallichiana. However, in this case a CITES permit would be required, with such trade only allowed on recommendation of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Exports of plants produced via cultivation are allowed subject to obtaining a transit pass from the relevant
Divisional Forest Officer if the plants were cultivated in sites within forests, or a Certificate of Cultivationfrom a District Agriculture, Horticulture or Forest Officer if cultivated at sites outside forests. Export Licensing Note 2 included in this schedule states that “…However, in respect of CITES species, a CITES permitof export shall be required”. As noted above, it appears that this provision relates to all but formulations,however this requires further clarification.
It does not appear that export restrictions on wild specimens of CITES-listed species apply to imported
specimens, however this requires confirmation, nor does it appear that there are any specific provisions
made for controlling re-exports of CITES-listed species, other than as may be required to prove that reexports do not involve wild-collected stock from within India. No reference could be found to an earlier(2003) provision requiring exporters of value-added formulations made out of imported species from thelist of “prohibited plants” to provide an affidavit to Customs authorities at the time of export that the specimens were legally imported (NTF NO. 03/2003 31/03/2003). However, CITES Management Authority staff
state that proof of import is required prior to granting re-export permission, and that they take into account,for example, the amount of unprocessed product that would have been required on import to produce agiven export quantity (JAIN in litt. 2005). CITES Re-export Certificates are issued for such shipments(AARTI 2005).
According to India’s CITES Management Authority staff, the export of paclitaxel and 10 DAB manufactured
from imported Taxus baccata is permitted with issuance of a “No Objection Certificate” by the CITES Management Authority after scrutinizing import documents and taking an affidavit from the exporter that the exported
derivatives have in fact been manufactured from imported T. baccata. Such exports are not being recorded inIndia’s CITES annual reports as they do not involve CITES-listed species (JAIN in litt. 2005).
Exports are required to be limited to the following ports: Mumbai, Nhava Sheva, Kolkata, Cochin, Delhi,
Chennai, Tuticorin, Amritsar, Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram (DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE
2004). It is not clear if this relates to all plants covered under this Customs classification, or only to CITESlisted species and other medicinal species for which export is prohibited.
All violations of the EXIM policy constitute an offence under the Customs Act and are dealt with by Customs officials, who alone have the responsibility to enforce compliance with CITES at border posts. Inspection of consignments by Wildlife Inspectors, co-operating with Customs staff, may also be carried out
at border crossings, but such specialist investigations are few. Enforcement of any violations detected is
the responsibility of the Customs authorities (PANDA in litt. 1998).
There is no specific CITES-implementing legislation in Nepal, however legislation to promote more effective CITES implementation has been under consideration since the late 1990s. If agreed, the Rare (Endangered) Wildlife and Plants Trade Control Act 2057 (2002), which includes a number of CITES-relevant

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

127provisions, would provide a more powerful legal tool for CITES implementation within Nepal (HEINEN &CHAPAGAIN 2002).
Nepal’s CITES Management Authority for plants is the Department of Forests, Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation. The CITES Scientific Authority for plants is the Department of Plant Resources, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation. The Management Authority issues export permits for plants covered by
CITES and/or the Forest Act.
The Management Authority also maintains liaison with the Departments of Customs, Intelligence, Policeand other agencies. The Ministry of Commerce (Customs) and the police assist in the enforcement ofimport and export controls. However, it was noted in 2000 that Customs officers had not been trained in
the identification of medicinal plants (BISTA in litt. 2000); it is not known if training has been provided sincethat time. Personnel from the Department of Forests and District Forest Offices have been posted at theCustoms points in the Terai to examine consignments containing wild flora (ARYAL 2000).
The Government of Nepal banned export of Taxus spp. by publishing a notification in the Nepal Gazette
under the power conferred by rule 12 and 13 (2) of Forest Regulation 1995 on April 3 1995, which wasamended per Clause 2 of Nepal Gazette vol. 3, Section 51 No. 36, dated 31 December 2001 issued by
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. The Government allows the export of Taxus spp. in processed
form with permission from Department of Forests on the recommendation of Department of Plant Resource and Herbs Production and Processing Co. Ltd (AMATYA in litt. 2005). According to PANDIT & THAPA(2004), the ban on export of raw materials of certain medicinal species has been misinterpreted by someDistrict Forest Office staff as relating to trade from one District to another, rather than to export from Nepal, increasing the incentive for illegal trade by village collectors.
Treaty of Trade between Nepal and India
In an effort to expand trade between their two countries, the Governments of India and Nepal entered intoa bilateral trade agreement in 1991. The treaty provides for preferential treatment (exemption from Customs duty and quantitative restrictions) for trade in certain “primary products”, which include forest produce that has not undergone processing, and Ayurvedic and herbal medicines (Article IV) (ANON. 2002c).
Under this treaty, a certificate of origin issued by the Government of Nepal is the only document requiredfor presentation to India’s Customs authorities at the time of import (MULLIKEN 2000). Trade in conjunction
with the treaty is required to take place via one of the 22 border crossings designated in Annex A of thetreaty. During the late 1990s, border officials were unaware that CITES documentation might also be required for export (as noted above, under India’s current CITES implementing legislation and the EXIM
Policy, CITES export permits would not be required to accompany shipments into India in any event). The
treaty contains provisions for stronger domestic measures on the part of national governments, and provides a list of articles not allowed preferential treatment (e.g. cigarettes and alcohol) as an annex. It appears that this Annex could be amended to reflect CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
TRAFFIC India informed Government authorities in both India and Nepal of the apparent relevance of thistreaty with respect to CITES trade controls. Initial research results from this study were communicated tothe second Indo-Nepal Trans-border Meeting in February 1999. As a result, the final resolution of thatmeeting called for bringing the bilateral treaty in line with CITES requirements (MULLIKEN 2000).
The treaty was extended for a further five years in 2002 and remained in effect until 5 March 2007 (ANON.
2002d). Although some amendments were made, these did not reflect the concerns raised regarding
CITES implementation (AMATYA in litt. 2005). The treaty has been extended for a further five years, andwill remain in effect until 5 March 2012.
Pakistan’s CITES Management Authority is the National Council for the Conservation of Wildlife (NCCW),
under the authority of the Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development, in Islamabad. CITES permits are issued by the NCCW, which is also responsible for formulating countrywide legislation for regulating harvest, national and international trade of CITES-listed species. It issues directives tovarious provincial Forest Departments to control the harvest and trade of medicinal plants and intervenes
wherever a violation of CITES is reported. It is also responsible for inter-provincial and international coordination of CITES implementation. Enforcement officials interviewed at border posts were generally
unaware of CITES requirements.

128

Taxus wallichiana

Conclusions
Taxus wallichiana is a multipurpose tree species valued through much of its range as a source of timber,
fuelwood, fodder, tea, traditional medicine and, since the early 1990s, paclitaxel and other taxanes used inanti-cancer medications. Slow growing, slow to regenerate and sensitive to canopy disturbance and fire, itappears that this species was declining in some parts of its range even before harvest for production of
taxanes began. However, high demand for bark and leaves for paclitaxel production resulted in a significant increase in the rate of harvest leading to population declines in China, India and Nepal, and potentially elsewhere in the species’ range. Cultivation has been promoted in each of these countries, but as yet
does not appear to be making a major contribution to T. wallichiana supplies. International trade in T. wallichiana and other Asian Taxus species involves a combination of leaves, bark and extracts in various
stages of processing. Much of the preliminary processing appears to take place within the three range
States named above, while the final pharmaceutical products are more likely to be produced and consumed in the USA, and, increasingly, in Europe. There has also been an increasing trade in raw materials
from European and North American Taxus species to China in recent years to support processing facilities
in that country.
Although the species has been listed in CITES Appendix II since 1995, there is relatively little information
available regarding current rates of harvest and trade of T. wallichiana. This reflects a combination of factors, including:•

Varying interpretations and confusion regarding the taxonomy of T. wallichiana and other Taxus species;•

Generally low levels of CITES implementation for medicinal plant species;•

The exclusion of chemical derivatives (extracts) from CITES trade controls from 2000-2005; and•Difficulty in visually identifying the main products in trade (leaves, bark, extract), including with regard
to discriminating between parts and derivatives from T. wallichiana and those from other Taxus species.

The listing of the remaining Asian Taxus species in CITES Appendix II effective January 2005 should facilitate CITES implementation for T. wallichiana by requiring CITES documentation for any trade in native
Taxus species from range States. The revised annotation for T. wallichiana, which also applies to theseother species, should also improve the role of CITES in controlling and monitoring trade. However, CITES
implementation will continue to be complicated by the factors above, and the increased trade in paclitaxel
and other compounds produced from non-CITES Taxus species.
Ongoing research and developments in the technology for extracting and synthesising paclitaxel and othertaxanes has widened the range of Taxus species from which these compounds can and are being extracted. These include European Yew T. baccata, a widely distributed species and also a common ornamental plant, and the North American species T. canadensis, for which commercial propagation trials fortaxane production are underway. Paclitaxel is also now being produced via plant cell fermentation technology, although the rights to this technology were apparently initially licensed to a single company. Thesedevelopments, along with significant investment in cultivation of Taxus species, suggest that demand forwild-harvested T. wallichiana will decrease at some stage in the future. In the near term, however, it
seems likely that a strong economic incentive for wild harvesting and the purchase by manufacturers ofwild-harvested products will remain, even within range States that do not allow such harvests such as
China. There is no indication that demand for local use as a medicinal plant and tea within Himalayan
range States will decrease in the near future. Use of raw materials in Ayurvedic and Unani medicines also
seems likely to persist.
Most key range States have placed strict restrictions on harvests and/or trade. China bans both harvests
and export, although does allow products to be manufactured, and presumably exported, from wildharvested materials that have been confiscated. Based on available information, it appears that wild harvest continues to be legal in some states within India, and national export laws allow for the export of“formulations” made from wild-harvested material. However, no such exports have been permitted in recent years according to CITES Management Authority staff. India’s trade controls similarly allow for theimport and re-export of wild material from other countries outside of CITES trade controls. There was no
information to indicate that this was a widespread practice, however, with imports of materials for processing said to involve T. baccata. Wild-harvest is allowed within Nepal, as is export of value added products(e.g. extracts). No permits have been issued for harvest in or export from Myanmar, and harvest (andpresumably export) is banned in Pakistan.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

129

Further information is required to determine how CITES authorities within those countries that allow exportof raw materials or extracts maintain chain of custody controls in order to discriminate between CITES andnon-CITES species. Further information is also required with regard to the making of non-detriment findings when trade involves wild-harvested specimens. Unlike cultivation, it seems that relatively little emphasis has been placed thus far on making such findings, or on developing sustainable harvest rotations
for bark and leaves of T. wallichiana or other Asian Taxus species. Increased emphasis on sustainable
harvest methods in Asian range States could serve multiple purposes, including securing income for rural(and potentially landless) producers and increasing the sustainability of Taxus harvests for other purposes, e.g. fodder and local production of traditional medicines and teas. Given the slow growth of thespecies, it seems unlikely that a similar approach would be successful with regard to timber harvests.
However it might be that the promise of long-term cash income from needles and bark could outweigh theshort-term benefits to be gained from use and sales of timber.

Possible next steps
Range States for Asian Taxus species might consider•

increasing domestic chain of custody controls for Taxus parts, derivatives and products; and•investing in sustainable forest management and associated forest tenure approaches for Taxus species, and cross-sharing of lessons learned at the local, national and regional levels.

Range, consumer and intermediary processing States for Asian Taxus species might consider•

Developing and distributing improved identification materials for Asian Taxus parts and derivatives
likely to be in trade;•

Developing a standardized CITES labelling system for chemical derivatives and extracts;•

Developing of a notification system to report the issuance and/or acceptance of CITES export permits
for raw as well as processed materials; and•Greater sharing of information regarding national harvest and trade controls, including the making of
CITES non-detriment findings.

References
AARTI, Ms., CITES Enforcement Inspector, CITES Management Authority of India (2005): pers. comm. to
P. Jain, Medicinal Plants Consultant India (16.05.2005).
AHMAD, H. (1999): Issues regarding medicinal plants of Pakistan. Udyana Today 6: 6-7. [reference cited in
AHMAD in litt. 2005]
AHMAD, H. (2005): in litt. to IUCN Pakistan.
AHMED, E., M. ARSHAD, M. AHMAD, M. SAEED & M. ISHAQUE (2004): Ethnopharmacological survey of somemedicinally important plants of Galliyat Areas of NWFP, Pakistan. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences
3 (4): 410-415.
ALAM, G. (2004): Database on Medicinal Plants. CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment, Calcutta, India.
AMATYA, G., IUCN Nepal (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
AMIN, F., H. AHMAD, H. ALI & R. AFZA (2004): Potential and threats to the Himalayan yew of Pakistan. In:
H. AHMAD & A.A. KHAN (Eds.) (2004): Conservation and Sustainable Uses of Medicinal Plants ofPakistan. Proceeding of the International Workshop, WWF-Pakistan, pp. 121-124. [reference citedin AHMAD in litt. 2005]
ANON. (1976): Wealth of India, Publications and Information Directorate, vol. X, CSIR, New Delhi, India.
ANON. (2001a): Taxon Data Sheet – 50. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan Workshop,
Pokhara, Nepal.
ANON. (2001b): Analysis; smuggling Madurai and beyond. Down to Earth. 31 January 2001 (pp. 28-41).
ANON. (2002a): North East India Region (NER) Databank, North Eastern Development Finance Corporation
Ltd. http://databank.nedfi.com/content.php?menu=102019&page_id=727 (Viewed 04.01.2005).

130

Taxus wallichiana

ANON. (2002b): Interview (with Dabur Nepal Director TK Gupta. Nepali Times 7-13 June 2002.
Http://nepalnews.com/ntimes/issue97/interview.htm (Viewed 04.01.05).
ANON. (2002c):Treaty of Trade Between His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Government of India.
http://www.tpcnepal.org.np/tagree/treatyoftradeind.htm .
ANON. (2004a): Science (in Chinese). http://www.losn.com.cn/hjbh/plant/gymnospermae/3-14.htm (Viewed
12.2004).
ANON. (2004b): Report of the Asia Region. CITES Standing Committee Document SC50 Doc. 35.2.
ARYAL, R.S. (2000): Legislative framework and the protection of medicinal plants in Nepal. In: WATANABE,
T., A. TAKANO, M.S. BISTA, & H.K. SAIJU (Eds.): Proceeding of Nepal-Japan Joint Symposium on
conservation and Utilisation of Himalayan Medicinal Resources, Nov. 6-11.11.2000, pp. 27-32,
Society for the Conservation and Development of Himalayan Medicinal Resources (SCDHMR).
BASYAL, B.P., K. SHRESTHA, V. SINGH & B.R. PANTA (1997): The Taxanes of Taxus wallichiana of Nepal.
Journal of Nepal Chemical Society 16:10-12.
BECKSTROM-STERNBERG, S.M. & J.A. DUKE (1993): Ethnopharmocology of yew. In: International Yew Resource Conference: Yew (Taxus) Conservation Biology and Interactions, p. 3. Berkeley, CA, USA.
BEDI, Y.S., R.K. OGRA, KIRAN KOUL, B.L. KAUL & R.S. KAPIL (1996): Yew (Taxus spp.). A new look on utilization, cultivation and conservation. In: HANDA, S.S. & M.K. KAUL (Eds.): Supplement to cultivation
and utilization of medicinal plants. pp. 443-456, Regional Research Laboratory, Jammu-Tawi, India.
BINAYEE, S.B. (undated): Government Regulations in NTFPs Trade. ANSAB. http://www.ansab.org/News_
Fol/government_regulation.htm (Viewed 24.04.2005).
BISTA, M.S. (2000): in litt. to the CITES Secretariat (23.02.2000).
CHAUDHARY, V., A. BHATTACHARYYA & R.R YADAV (1999): Tree-ring studies in the eastern Himalayan region: Prospects and problems. IAWA Journal 20(3): 317-324. {a} Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow, India. [reference cited in AHMAD in litt. 2005]
CHAUHAN, N.S. (1999): Medicinal and aromatic plants of Himachal Pradesh. Indus Publishing Company,
New Delhi, India.
GOVERNMENTS OF CHINA AND THE USA (2004): Proposal to include Taxus chinensis, T. cuspidata, T. fuana,
T. sumatrana and all infraspecific taxa of these species in CITES Appendix II.
CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (2004): in litt. to P. Jain, Medicinal Plants Consultant India.
DA BUQIONG & JIN ZHOU (2003): Grafting experiments for seedlings breeding of Taxus wallichiana. Journalof Southwest Forestry College 23(1): 24-25 (in Chinese with English abstract).
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE (2004): Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009. Ministry of Commerce& Industry, Government of India, New Delhi on http://dgft.delhi.nic.in/ (Viewed 16.01.2005).
DUKE, J.A. (1992): Handbook of phytochemical constituents of GRAS herbs and other economic plants.
Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press Big Tree.
FANG, XINTIAN, GUO,XIANGQUAN , LI YULEI , CHEN DENGXIONG & HUAN LUZHU (2000): The growth characterand nursery management of Taxus chinensis var. mairei one-year-old seedling. Journal of FujianCollege of Forestry 20(1): 72-75 (In Chinese, with English Abstract).
FARJON, A. (1998): World checklist and bibliography of conifers. - v+298 pp., Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew,UK.
FARJON, A. (2001): World checklist and bibliography of conifers. 2nd edition, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.
FARJON, A., C.N. PAGE & N. SCHELLEVIS (1993): A preliminary world list of threatened conifer taxa. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 304-326.
FARJON, A. & C.N. PAGE (comp.) (1999): Conifers: Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN/SSC
Conifer Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
FOREMAN, J. (2002). Coated stents show huge promise. http://www.myhealthsense.com/F020507_
stent.html (Viewed 05.05).
FU LIKUO & JIN JIANMING (Eds.) (1992): China Plant Red Data Book. Rare and Endangered plants 1. 741
pp., Science Press, Beijing, China/New York, USA.
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

131

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PLANNING COMMISSION (2000): Report of the Task Force on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants.
HANDIQUE, P.J., S. CHATTOPADHYAY & D. BHUYAN (2000): Medicinal plant trade in North-East India. pp. 1623. WWF India/TRAFFIC India, New Delhi, India (Unpublished Report).
HARA, H., W.T. STEARN & L.H.J. WILLIAMS (1978-1982): An enumeration of the flowering plants of Nepal. 3
volumes. British Museum of Natural History, London, UK. [reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC
Threatened Plants Database]
HEINEN, J. & D.P. CHAPAGAIN (2002): On the expansion of species protection in Nepal: Advances and pitfalls of new efforts to implement and comply with CITES. Journal of International Wildlife Law and
Policy 5:235-250.
IUCN (2006): 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org (Downloaded on
31.10.2006).
IUCN NEPAL (2004): National Register of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (Revised and updated). xiii+202
pp. IUCN, Nepal.
IUCN PAKISTAN (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (25.02.2005).
IUCN SPECIES SURVIVAL COMMISSION & TRAFFIC NETWORK (1994): Analyses of proposals to amend the
CITES Appendices. - viii+266 pp., IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN SPECIES SURVIVAL COMMISSION & TRAFFIC (2004): IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of the proposals toamend the CITES Appendices. Prepared by IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC
for the Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IQBAL, M. (1991): Non-timber forest products: their income-generation potential for rural women in NorthWest Frontier Province (Pakistan). International Labor Organization and Government of NWFP.
Peshawar, Pakistan.
JAIN, A.K. (2000): Regulation of collection, transit and trade of medicinal plants and other Non-Timber
forest produce in India. A compendium. xxix +529. TRAFFIC-India/WWF India, New Delhi, India.
JAIN, P. (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
JARVIS, L. (2002): Bulk paclitaxel market poised for growth. Chemical Market Reporter 18 March 2002.
KHAN, B.A. (2005): in litt. to IUCN Pakistan.
KHIN MAUNG ZAW, Myanmar CITES Scientific Authority (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
LANGE, D. & U. SCHIPPMANN (1999): Checklist of medicinal and aromatic plants and their trade names covered by CITES and EU Regulation 2307/97. Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Unpublished report,
Bonn, Germany.
LANGE, D. & M. WÄCHTER (1996): Untersuchung der Gefährdung von Pflanzenarten durch den internationalen Heilpflanzenhandel mit Indien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Handels zwischen
Indien und Deutschland. - 101 pp., Annexes, Unpublished report, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
LU RONGSEN (1998): Production of the anti-cancer drug Taxol in Western Sichuan, China and the analyses of its development and constraints to its development. Enterprises in mountain-specific products in western Sichuan, China. ICIMOD, Kathmandu. http://www.icimod.org/focus/ enterprise/lrngsen_taxol.htm
LUU, N.D.T. & P. THOMAS (2004): Conifers of Vietnam: an illustrated field guide. 121pp. World Publishing
House, Hanoi, Viet Nam.
MACIVOR, D.M., and E.H. PETERS (2000): Environmental assessment of Taxus yunnanensis for the production of Paclitaxel. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. abbreviated new drug application to the United
Sates Food and Drug Administration for paclitaxel. Prepared by The Mattson Jack Group, St
Louis, USA. [reference cited in GOVERNMENTS OF CHINA AND THE USA]
MAIKHURI, R.K., S. NAUTIYAL, & K.S. RAO (1998): Medicinal plants cultivation and biosphere reserve management: A case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Current Science 75:152-157.
MAIKHURI, R.K., S. NAUTIYAL, K.S. RAO, K. CHANDRASEKHAR, R. GAVALIE & K.G. SAXENA (2000): Analysis
and resolution of protected area-people conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Conservation 27(1): 43-53.

132

Taxus wallichiana

MALLA, S.B., P.R. SHAKYA, K.R. RAJBHANDARI, N.N. SUBEDI & B.L SHRESTHA (1996): Identification manual
for some non-timber forestry products of Nepal. Forest Resources Information System Project(FRISP). FRIS Project Paper No. 8, HMGN/FINNIDA, Kathmandu, Nepal.
MANANDHAR, N.P. (1994): in litt. to IUCN Species Survival Commission. [reference cited in IUCN Species
Survival Commission & TRAFFIC Network 1994]
MANANDHAR, N.P. (2002): Plants and people of Nepal. +599pp. Timber Press Inc., Portland, USA.
MCCUNE, B. & T.F.H. ALLEN (1985): Forest dynamics in the Bitterroot Canyons, Montana. Can. Journal of
Botany 63: 377-383. [reference cited in PUROHIT & al. 2001]
MCCOY, M. (2004): Lining up to make a cancer drug. Chemical and Engineering News. 30 August 2004.
82(35):12-14.
MILL, R.R. (1994): Annotations to Conifers. Taxa listed on BG-BASE. Status report as of 2 February 1994.
[reference cited in the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
MOLUR, S. & S. WALKER (Eds.) (1998): Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) workshop report. Selected medicinal plants of northern, northeastern and central India. Lucknow, India,
21-25 January 1997. - iv+64 pp., ZOO Outreach Organization, CBSG India, Coimbatore, India.
NANDI, S.K., L.M.S. PALNI & H.C. RIKHARI (1996): Chemical induction of adventitous root formation in Taxus
baccata cuttings. Plant Growth Regulation 19: 117-22. [reference cited in RIKHARI & al. 1998]
NASIR, E. & Y.J. NASIR (1987): Flora of Pakistan. PARC, Islamabad, Pakistan.Vol-185: 25-27.
NGUYEN HOANG NGHIA (2000): Some threatened tree species of Vietnam. Agr. Publ. House, Hanoi, VietNam.
NGUYEN TIEN HIEP & J.E. VIDAL (1996): Flore du Cambodge du Lao PDR et du Vietnam. Gymnospermae
Fasc. 28. Museum National D'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France.
OLDFIELD, S., C. LUSTY & A. MACKINVEN (1998): The world list of threatened trees. - 650 pp., World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK.
OLSEN, C.S. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (22.02.2000).
OLSEN, C.S. (2005): Trade and conservation of Himalayan medicinal plants: Nardostachys grandiflora DC.
and Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora (Pennel) Hong. Biological Conservation 125(4): 505-514.
PANDA, S. (1998): in litt. to TRAFFIC India (09.11.1998).
PANDEY, A., M. NADEEM & L.M.S. PALNI (unpublished). [reference cited in RIKHARI & al. 1998]
PANDIT, B.H. & G.B. THAPA (2004): A tragedy of non-timber forest resources in the mountain commons of
Nepal. Environment and Conservation 30: 283-292.
PAUDEL, D. & C. ROSSET (1998): What Hanuman brought was not only jaributi. Action Research Cell,
Technical Note No. 1. Kathmandu, Nepal, Nepal Swiss Community Forestry Development Project.
[reference cited in VANTOMME & al. 2002]
PHAN THUC VAT (1996): Sach do Viet Nam [Red data book of Viet Nam 2. Plants]. In Vietnamese. - 484
pp., Science and Technics Publishing House, Hanoi.
PHILLIPS, L.D. & D.B. DWYER (1999): Sustainable harvesting of Himalayan yews. In: TRAFFIC EUROPE(Ed.): Medicinal plant trade in Europe. Proceedings of the first symposium on the conservation of
medicinal plants in trade in Europe, 22-23.6.1998, Kew, pp. 147-154, TRAFFIC Europe, s.loc.
POLLACK, A. (2005): American Pharmaceutical Partners Gets FDA Approval of New Breast Cancer Drug.
The New York Times. 08.01.2005.
PRADHAN, R. (1993): Annotations to WCMC plant list for Bhutan dated 31 August 1993. [reference cited in
the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database]
PUROHIT, ADITYA, R.K MAIKHURI, K.S. RAO & S. NAUTIYAL (2001): Impact of bark removal on survival of
Taxus baccata L. (Himalayan yew) in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Garhwal Himalaya, India.
Current Science 81(5) 10 September: 586-590.
RAPA (1987): Forest based rural enterprises in Pakistan. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA),
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Bangkok, Thailand.

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

133

RAWAT, G.S., Head, Habitat Ecology Department, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India (2005): in litt.
to P. Jain, Medicinal Plant Consultant India (10.01.2005).
REHMAN, I. (2002): Ethnobotanical studies of Miandam Valley Swat. Department of Botany, Government
Jahanzeb College Saidu Sharif. [reference cited in AHMAD in litt. 2005]
RIEDL, H. (1965): Taxaceae. In: RECHINGER, K.H. (Ed.): Flora Iranica. Lfg. No. 12/31.1.1965.
RIKHARI, H.C., L.M.S. PALNI, S. SHARMA & S.K. NANDI (1998): Himalayan yew. Stand structure, canopy
damage, regeneration and conservation strategy. Environmental Conservation 25: 334-341.
SAMANT, S.S., U. DHAR & L.M.S. PALNI (1998): Medicinal plants of Indian Himalaya: Diversity distribution
potential value. pp. 155-158. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, Uttaranchal, India.
SCHIPPMANN, U. (2001): Medicinal Plants Significant Trade Study CITES Project S-109; BfN Skripten 39,
Bonn, Germany.
SHARMA, U.R., PhD, Director General, His Majesty’s Government Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of Forests, Nepal (2006): in litt. to U. Schippman, CITES Scientific Authority,
Germany (16.05.06).
SHELDON, J.W., M.J. BALICK & S. LAIRD (1997): Medicinal plants. Can Utilization and Conservation Coexist?
xii+104 pp., New York Botanical Garden, New York (Advances in Economic Botany 12).
SHRESTHA, T.B. (2000): in litt. to TRAFFIC International (25.02.2000).
SHRESTHA, K., G.A. STROBEL, S.P SRIVASTAVA, & M.B. GEWALI (1999): Endophytic Taxol - Producing Fungi
from Himalayan Yew of Nepal. Published in the proceedings of 8th International Workshop of BIOREFOR, 28 Nov.-2 Dec. pp 186-187.
SHRESTHA, K., S.P SRIVASTAVA, G.A. STROBEL & M.B. GEWALI (2000a): Taxol from Deuteromycetous andAscomycetous Endophytic Fungi of Taxus wallichiana. Published an abstract in an "International
Congress and 48th Annual Meeting of the society for Medicinal Plant Research (GA): Natural
Products Research in the New Millennium", 3-7 Sept. 2000, Zurich, Switzerland.
SHRESTHA, K., S.P SRIVASTAVA, G.A. STROBEL & M.B. GEWALI (2000b): An anticancer drug, Taxol from
Endophytic Fungi of Some Himalayan Conifers of Nepal. Published an abstract in the "International Conference on Biotechnology and Biodiversity" from 14-16 November 2000. Kathmandu,
Nepal.
SHRESTHA, K., G.A. STROBEL, S.P. SRIVASTAVA, & M.B. GEWALI (2001): Evidence for Paclitaxel from three
new Endophytic Fungi of Himalayan Yew of Nepal. Planta Medica Germany 67: 374-376.
SINGH, J.S. & S.P. SINGH (1992): Forests of Himalaya: Structure functioning and impact of man. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital, Uttaranchal.
THOMAS, P. & TO LUU NGUYEN DUC (2004): Current status of Taxus species in Viet Nam. Unpublished report prepared in response to a request from the IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme
TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
TRAFFIC INDIA (1998): Medicinal plants significant trade study. CITES project (S 109). India country report. - 103 pp., unpublished report, New Delhi, India.
TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA (2004): What’s wrong with Yew? Unpublished report. TRAFFIC North America,
Washington, USA.
TRAFFIC NORTH AMERICA (2005): in litt. to TRAFFIC International.
UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants Database. Maintained by the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
US GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE (2003): Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden, U.S. Senate: Technology
Transfer; NIH-Private Sector Partnership in the Development of Taxol. US GAO, Washington, USA.
VANTOMME, P., A. MARKKULA & R.N. LESLIE (Eds.) (2002): Non-wood forest products in 15 countries oftropical Asia, an overview. Bangkok, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific pp. 137-146(Nepal) ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/AB598E/AB598E00.pdf (Viewed 11.05.2005).
VED, D.K., G.A. KINHAL & al. (2003a): Conservation assessment & management prioritisation for the medicinal plants of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya & Sikkim. Foundation for Revitalisation of
Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.

134

Taxus wallichiana

VED, D.K., G.A. KINHAL & al. (2003b): Conservation assessment & management prioritisation for the medicinal plants of Northwest Himalayan states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh andUttaranchal. Foundation for Revitalisation of Local Health Traditions (FRLHT), Bangalore, India.
VITI, S., C. SHANGSHOU, G. XIANGSHUM, L. SHUYING, L. DONG, W. XIAOMING, L. ZHAONING, L. SONG, Y.
YUNJIANG & X. JIANCHANG (2001): Environmental assessment for paclitaxel injection application to
the U.S.Food and Drug Administration. Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc., Miami, Florida, USA.
[reference cited in ANON. 2004b]
VU VAN DUNG (Ed.) (1996): Vietnam forest trees. Forest Inventory and Planning Institute, Agricultural Publishing House, Hanoi, Viet Nam. [reference cited in THOMAS & LUU 2004]
WANG DAMING, ZHOU YUN & LI LIANFANG (2004): Contents of anti-cancer active components in plants of
Taxus yunnanensis. Journal of West China Forestry Science 33(3): 12-17. (In Chinese, with English abstract).
Wang, S. & Y. Xie (2004): China Species Red List Vol. I. Red List. Higher Education Press, Beijing.
WANG, X. & X. YANG (Compilers) (1999): Plants of the Chinese Region – Status Survey and Conservation
Action Plan. IUCN/SSC China Plant Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK. [reference cited in GOVERNMENTS OF CHINA AND THE USA 2004]
XECHEM INTERNATIONAL (2001): Xechem International and Xechem China Sign Cooperation Agreementwith Shanghai Fudan Taxusal New Technology Co., Ltd. Press Release. 3.23.01.
XIANG QIAOPING (2004): in litt. to IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme, Cambridge, UK.
XU HONGFA, TRAFFIC EAST ASIA (2005): in litt. to IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme, Cambridge, UK.
XU JIANCHU (1997): Taxus at risk in Yunnan, southwest China. Medicinal Plant Conservation 4: 10.
ZHAI BAOGUO, PLANT DEPARTMENT, CHINA CITES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (2005): pers. comm. to Xu
Hongfa, TRAFFIC East Asia (02.05).
ZHANG BINZHEN & LI PU (2004): The heavy burden born by Taxol (in Chinese). Government of China.
http://www3.chinaport.gov.cn
ZHOU YAFEI (2001): pers. comm. to the Chinese CITES Management Authority (08.2001). [reference citedin GOVERNMENTS OF CHIN AND THE USA 2004]

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

135

136

Annex 1

ANNEX 1. LIST OF ISO COUNTRY CODES AND COUNTRY NAMESThis list provices country names (official short names in English) in alphabetical order as given in International Standards Organisation 3166-1 and the corresponding ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 code elements. The
list is updated whenever a change to the official code list in ISO 3166-1 is effected by the ISO 3166/MA. It
lists 240 official short names and code elements.
AfghanistanÅland Islands
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
AndorraAngolaAnguilla
Antarctica
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
BahamasBahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
BelarusBelgium
BelizeBenin
BermudaBhutanBolivia
Bosnia And Herzegovina
Botswana
Bouvet Island
BrazilBritish Indian Ocean Territory
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
BurundiCambodia
Cameroon
CanadaCape Verde
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Christmas Island

AF
AX
AL
DZ
AS
AD
AO
AI
AQ
AG
AR
AM
AW
AU
AT
AZ
BS
BH
BD
BB
BY
BE
BZ
BJ
BM
BT
BO
BA
BW
BV
BR
IO
BN
BG
BF
BI
KH
CM
CA
CV
KY
CF
TD
CL
CN
CX

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Cote D'ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
CyprusCzech Republic
DenmarkDjibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEgypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Faroe Islands
Fiji
FinlandFranceFrench Guiana
French Polynesia
French Southern Territories
Gabon
GambiaGeorgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
GreeceGreenland
GrenadaGuadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guernsey
GuineaGuinea-Bissau

CC
CO
KM
CG
CD
CK
CR
CI
HR
CU
CY
CZ
DK
DJ
DM
DO
EC
EG
SV
GQ
ER
EE
ET
FK
FO
FJ
FI
FR
GF
PF
TF
GA
GM
GE
DE
GH
GI
GR
GL
GD
GP
GU
GT
GG
GN
GW

137

Guyana
Haiti
Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands
Holy See (Vatican City State)
HondurasHong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran, Islamic Republic of
Iraq
IrelandIsle of Man
IsraelItaly
JamaicaJapan
JerseyJordanKazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic of
KuwaitKyrgyzstan
Lao People's Democratic Republic
LatviaLebanonLesothoLiberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav
Republic ofMadagascar
MalawiMalaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
MayotteMexicoMicronesia, Federated States of

138

GY
HT
HM
VA
HN
HK
HU
IS
IN
ID
IR
IQ
IE
IM
IL
IT
JM
JP
JE
JO
KZ
KE
KI
KP
KR
KW
KG
LA
LV
LB
LS
LR
LY
LI
LT
LU
MO
MK
MG
MW
MY
MV
ML
MT
MH
MQ
MR
MU
YT
MX
FM

Moldova, Republic of
MonacoMongolia
Montserrat
MoroccoMozambique
MyanmarNamibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norfolk Island
Northern Mariana Islands
NorwayOman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Territory, Occupied
PanamaPapua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Pitcairn
PolandPortugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
ReunionRomania
Russian Federation
RwandaSaint Helena
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
SenegalSerbia And Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone

MD
MC
MN
MS
MA
MZ
MM
NA
NR
NP
NL
AN
NC
NZ
NI
NE
NG
NU
NF
MP
NO
OM
PK
PW
PS
PA
PG
PY
PE
PH
PN
PL
PT
PR
QA
RE
RO
RU
RW
SH
KN
LC
PM
VC
WS
SM
ST
SA
SN
CS
SC
SL

Annex 1

Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
SomaliaSouth Africa
South Georgia and the South Sandwich
Islands
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Swaziland
SwedenSwitzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Taiwan, Province of China
Tajikistan
Tanzania, United Republic ofThailand
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tokelau
Tonga
Trinidad And Tobago
Tunisia
TurkeyTurkmenistan
Turks And Caicos Islands
TuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Virgin Islands, British
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Wallis And Futuna
Western Sahara
Yemen
ZambiaZimbabwe

SG
SK
SI
SB
SO
ZA

Source:http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_c
ode_lists/english_country_names_and_code_ele
ments.htm

GS
ES
LK
SD
SR
SJ
SZ
SE
CH
SY
TW
TJ
TZ
TH
TL
TG
TK
TO
TT
TN
TR
TM
TC
TV
UG
UA
AE
GB
US
UM
UY
UZ
VU
VE
VN
VG
VI
WF
EH
YE
ZM
ZW

Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

139

ANNEX 2. LIST OF ISO LANGUAGE CODES AND CORRESPONDING LANGUAGES
This list provices three-digit language codes referred to in this report in alphabetical order as given in International Standards Organisation 639.2 and the corresponding languages.
Code
asm
ben
bhu
bod
bur
chi
eng
fre
gar
ger
guj
hin
ita
kan
kas
kha
mal
mar
mik
mun
nep
new
nld
ori
pha
por
pun
pus
san
spa
tam
tel
tha
tib
urd

Language
Assamese
Bengali
Bhutanese
TibetanBurmeseChineseEnglishFrenchGarhwal, Garwhali
GermanGujarati
Hindi
ItalianKanarese/Kannada
Kashmiri
Khasi
Malayalam
Marathi
Mikir
Mundari
NepaliNewariDutch
Oriya
pharmaceutical name
Portuguese
Punjabi
PushtoSanskrit
SpanishTamil
TeluguThai
Tibetan
Urdu

Source: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/English_list.php.

140

Annex 3

ANNEX 3. GUIDE TO INFORMATION WITHIN TABLES ON CITES-REPORTED TRADE
Data on international trade reported by CITES Parties (CITES annual report data) were obtained from theUNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, which maintains this information on behalf of the CITES
Secretariat. These are presented in the form of “comparative tabulations”, which allow comparison of tradereported by exporting/re-exporting Parties with that reported by importing Parties. When considering thesedata it is important to bear in mind that discrepancies in trade reporting by different countries, for example
reporting of the source of specimens in trade, may give the appearance that different shipments are
involved when this is not the case. In addition, Parties often report exports based on the date of permit
issuance; however, CITES export permits can be valid for up to six months, with the result that they may
be issued and reported on in one year by the exporting Party, but not reported on until the following yearby the importing Party. A guide to interpretation of CITES annual report data prepared by UNEP-WCMC,
UNEP-WCMC A Guide to Interpreting Outputs from the CITES Trade Database, can be found on the
UNEP-WCMC website at www.unep-wcmc.org/citestrade/docs/Guide_v.6.0.pdf.
The format for the CITES data tables in this document is provided below:
Year Country Country Origin
ofofImportExportExportQuantity Unit

Term

ImportP

S

Quantity

Unit

Term

P

S

Country codes used by the International Standards Organization are used to designate countries ofexport, origin (where this differs from the exporting country) and import. See Annex 1 for a list of thesecodes in relation to the country names. The code “??” is used where the country is unknown.
The following descriptions of the information contained within the individual columns have been extracted
from A Guide to Interpreting Outputs from the CITES Trade Database:
Year year in which trade occurredCountry of Import (where exports are reported, this is the declared country of destination)
Country of Export (where imports are reported, this is the declared country from which the specimens
were consigned)
Country of Origin (this column is blank if the country of export is the country of origin or if the country oforigin is not reported)
Export - Exports Reported by the Exporting Country
Quantity of specimens reported as imports
Unit e.g. kg. If no unit is shown, the figure represents the total number of specimens
Term description of specimens tradedP purpose of the transaction
S source of the specimen
Import - Imports Reported by the Importing Country
Quantity of specimens reported as (re-)exports
Unit e.g. kg. If no unit is shown, the figure represents the total number of specimens
Term description of specimens tradedP purpose of the transaction
S source of the specimen
Purpose and Source Codes
The preferred purpose and source codes to be used in annual reports and therefore appearing in the data,as specified in Notification to the Parties No. 2002/022, are as follows:
The reported purpose of the transaction is shown as a one-letter code:
B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation
E Educational
G Botanical Gardens
H Hunting trophies
L Enforcement (e.g. evidence in court, specimen for training)
M Bio-medical research
N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild
Review of Seven Asian CITES-listed Medicinal Plant Species

141

P Personal
Q Circuses and travelling exhibitions
S Scientific
T Commercial Trade
Z Zoos
The reported source of the transaction relates to the original source of the species being traded and again
is shown by a one-letter code:
A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11, paragraph a), as wellas parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5, of theConvention (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for noncommercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III).
C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts andderivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5, of the Convention(specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been bred in captivity for non-commercial
purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III).
D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes and Appendix-I plants artificially
propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under theprovisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention.
F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in
captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof. I Confiscated or seized
specimens (may be used with another code)
O Pre-Convention specimens (may be used with another code)
R Specimens originating in a ranching operation
U Source unknown (must be justified)
W Specimens taken from the wild142