Over-exploitation and illegal trade of reptile in Indonesia

Abstract

We report on the commercial trade in three reptile species harvested for different purposes in western Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan) for international markets: (1) Tokay geckos, Gekko gecko, traded for medicinal uses, (2) Javan filesnakes, Acrochordus javanicus, harvested for skins, and (3) Asiatic softshell turtles, Amyda cartilaginea, harvested for meat; each species is also exploited for the pet trade, but to a lesser extent. All three species are harvested from wild populations. None of these species are protected by Indonesian law, but there is a national harvest and export quota system in place to prevent overexploitation. For each species, we collected data from catchers, middlemen and exporters on harvest volumes, catching locales, turn-over and prices, and compared these figures with the quota allocated by the Indonesian authorities. The trade in G. gecko from Central and East Java (3 traders, 2006) amounts to around 1.2 million individuals annually, greatly exceeding the national quota of 50,000 G. gecko for the entire year and representing a monetary value for exporters of around one million USD / year. The annual trade in A. javanicus (in five cities in East and South Kalimantan, and North Sumatra, Riau (central Sumatra) and South Sumatra, 2005-6) was estimated at around 300,000 individuals from Kalimantan and 30,000 from Sumatra, exceeding the national quota of 200,000 individuals / year and representing a monetary value for exporters of at least three million USD / year. The trade in A. cartilaginea was monitored in three cities in North Sumatra and Riau in 1999: 200- 450,000 individuals were traded in 1998 and 1999, greatly exceeding the national quota of 10,000, with a monetary value for exporters in excess of ten million USD / year. We conclude that implementation of wildlife trade regulations by and large are not abided by many reptile traders and are not sufficiently enforced by the Indonesian authorities. We further note that the quota-setting process rarely involves non-detriment findings based on reliable biological information. In order for reptile trade to be sustainable in Indonesia, it is paramount that non-detriment findings are undertaken and existing regulations are sufficiently enforced.

Full text

83
Over-exploitation and illegal trade
of reptiles in Indonesia
Vincent Nijman1, Chris R. Shepherd1,2, Mumpuni3 & Kate L. Sanders4
1Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, OX3 0BP Oxford, UK
2TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Unit 3-2, 1st oor, Jalan SS23/11,Taman SEA, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
3Herpetology Department, Division of Zoology, Research Centre for Biology-LIPI, Jalan Raya Bogor Km 46, Cibinong 16911, Indonesia
4University of Adelaide, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Darling Building,
Adelaide, Australia 5005
We report on the commercial trade in three reptile species harvested for different purposes in western Indonesia (Sumatra,
Java, Kalimantan) for international markets: (1) Tokay geckos, Gekko gecko, traded for medicinal uses, (2) Javan lesnakes,
Acrochordus javanicus, harvested for skins, and (3) Asiatic softshell turtles, Amyda cartilaginea, harvested for meat; each
species is also exploited for the pet trade, but to a lesser extent. All three species are harvested from wild populations. None
of these species are protected by Indonesian law, but there is a national harvest and export quota system in place to prevent
overexploitation. For each species, we collected data from catchers, middlemen and exporters on harvest volumes, catching
locales, turn-over and prices, and compared these gures with the quota allocated by the Indonesian authorities. The trade in
G. gecko from Central and East Java (3 traders, 2006) amounts to around 1.2 million individuals annually, greatly exceeding
the national quota of 50,000 G. gecko for the entire year and representing a monetary value for exporters of around one
million USD / year. The annual trade in A. javanicus (in ve cities in East and South Kalimantan, and North Sumatra, Riau
(central Sumatra) and South Sumatra, 2005–6) was estimated at around 300,000 individuals from Kalimantan and 30,000
from Sumatra, exceeding the national quota of 200,000 individuals / year and representing a monetary value for exporters of
at least three million USD / year. The trade in A. cartilaginea was monitored in three cities in North Sumatra and Riau in 1999:
200–450,000 individuals were traded in 1998 and 1999, greatly exceeding the national quota of 10,000, with a monetary
value for exporters in excess of ten million USD / year. We conclude that implementation of wildlife trade regulations by
and large are not abided by many reptile traders and are not sufciently enforced by the Indonesian authorities. We further
note that the quota-setting process rarely involves non-detriment ndings based on reliable biological information. In order
for reptile trade to be sustainable in Indonesia, it is paramount that non-detriment ndings are undertaken and existing
regulations are sufciently enforced.
Key words: Biodiversity conservation, CITES, law enforcement, wildlife trade
HERPETOLOGICAL JOURNAL 22: 83–89, 2012
Correspondence: Chris R. Shepherd, TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Unit 3-2, 1st oor, Jalan SS23/11,Taman SEA, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor, Malaysia; E-mail: chris.shepherd@trafc.org
INTRODUCTION
Wildlife trade is at the heart of the relationship between
biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. It
is recognized as a major threat to biodiversity, and often
acts in concert with habitat loss and hunting (Phelps et
al., 2010). Although a signicant proportion of wildlife
trade is legal, violation of trade regulations and quotas is
commonplace (Broad et al., 2003; Nijman et al. 2011). In
southeast Asia, unsustainable and illegal trade in wildlife
threatens the conservation of numerous species (Nooren
& Claridge, 2001; Shepherd et al., 2004; Grieser-Johns
& Thomson, 2005; Nijman & Shepherd, 2007, 2011;
Shepherd & Nijman, 2007a), with Indonesia being one
of the region’s major exporters of wildlife (Soehartono &
Mardiastuti, 2002; Nijman 2010).
This study provides an overview of the harvest and
export of wildlife in Indonesia, focusing on three case
studies within reptiles that exemplify different aspects
of this trade. Indonesia’s laws are sufcient to regulate
the trade in wildlife, however the implementation
and enforcement of these laws is currently far from
effective (e.g. Shepherd & Nijman, 2007b). Indonesia
has comprehensive national legislation and quotas to
regulate exploitation, and has further committed to the
sustainable management of international wildlife trade
by becoming a Party to the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) (Soehartono & Mardiastuti, 2002). CITES
regulates trade in wildlife by including species on one
of three appendices: international trade is permitted in
species listed on Appendix II and III, albeit regulated, but
commercial international trade is prohibited in species
listed on Appendix I. Indonesia acceded to CITES in
December 1978, which entered into force in March 1979.
Reptiles (Squamata, Crocodilia, Testudines) are among
the most intensively harvested vertebrates for international
export from Indonesia; extremely large volumes are
traded both legally and illegally to supply the global
demand for pets, traditional medicines, skins and food
(cf. Webb & Vardon, 1998; Shepherd, 2000; Soehartono
and Mardiastuti, 2002). Here we focus on three reptile
species (a lizard, a snake and a turtle) that are traded
internationally and to a much lesser extent domestically,

84
V. Nijman et al.
to illustrate different aspects of the international demand
for wildlife products.
We provide an overview of the regulatory process
of the trade in these three species and then present our
ndings for each case study. For all species, we found that
the numbers harvested and exported greatly exceeded the
allocated quota, sometimes by several orders of magnitude
and to such an extent that it may be detrimental to the
survival of the species within their range in Indonesia.
While it is impossible to quantify the exact extent of the
(international) trade, these case studies provide estimates
of trade volumes, illustrate trade dynamics and highlight
the failure of exporters to adhere to laws and regulations
put in place by the Indonesian government and the lack of
enforcement of regulations for the sustainable utilization
of wildlife.
Background to quota setting process
Indonesia has an extensive harvest and export quota
system for non-protected species to supply both domestic
and international markets, regardless of whether they are
CITES-listed or not. There are no export quotas for species
listed in Appendix I of CITES (all commercial international
trade in these species is prohibited) or protected by
Indonesia’s national legislation. As Indonesia’s CITES
Scientic Authority, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences
(LIPI) sets quotas for harvest and export after consultation
with various stakeholders, including reptile traders (Amir
et al., 1998), partially due to LIPI having limited expertise
and resources (Soehartono & Mardiastuti, 2002). Prior to
setting a quota, CITES calls for non-detriment ndings
(NDF) to be carried out to assess the sustainable off-take
for any given species or population in any given area.
However, reliable NDF studies require information on
population and reproductive biology that are unavailable
for most species traded in Indonesia; quotas for many
species are instead based on trade gures in previous
years and the demands of exporters (cf. Auliya 2010).
Harvest quotas are assigned by province or district, with
a limited volume allowed from each designated area.
Animals are not allowed to be harvested from a province
that has not been allocated a quota. Of the entire harvest
quota, approximately 10% may be used for domestic
purposes and the remainder is designated for export.
The quotas clearly state the purpose of export (e.g. pets,
consumption, skins) and it is not permitted to export
animals for purposes other than those stated in the annual
quota.
The CITES Management Authority, i.e., Directorate
General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation
(PHKA), enforces the established quota. This is largely
carried out via the provincial offices of the Natural
Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA). Companies
or individuals wishing to harvest wildlife must obtain a
license to do so from the BKSDA ofce in the province
where the harvest is to take place, and may not exceed
the allocated harvest quota for each of the provinces. The
transport of wildlife from within Indonesia also requires
legal documents, whether or not the species concerned is
protected by law. Export quotas for reptiles are divided
among members of the Indonesian Reptile and Amphibian
Trade Association (IRATA), by IRATA itself. Anyone
not belonging to IRATA and not having quota may not
export reptiles or amphibians, with the exception of those
exporting primarily for the meat consumption trade.
In an effort to take pressure off wild populations,
captive breeding of wildlife is encouraged by the PHKA in
Indonesia (Nijman & Shepherd 2009). All individuals or
companies breeding reptiles for export must be registered
with the PHKA. Breeders supplying exporters, but not
themselves exporting, are registered with the BKSDA
ofces at a provincial level. Wild parent stock obtained
by companies breeding wildlife for commercial purposes
remain the property of the government, but since captive
bred specimens are not included in the quota, offspring
can be exported in unlimited numbers.
METHODS
Data were obtained from the Indonesian CITES
Management Authority, through interviews with members
of IRATA and from numerous stakeholders in the trade
of reptiles in Indonesia, including collectors, middlemen
and exporters.
Tokay geckos, Gekko gecko, are exploited for the pet
and traditional Chinese medicinal trades: consuming
Tokay geckos is thought to relieve coughs, asthma and
symptoms of tuberculosis (Gu et al., 2011). The species is
not CITES listed. Data on the G. gecko trade were obtained
by visiting two collector/exporter locations in East Java
in November 2006, and information was gathered on a
third visit to exporters in two locations in Central and
East Java (Auliya & Shepherd, 2007). While these three
traders are considered to be the largest in Indonesia there
may be other similar-sized companies active in Indonesia,
in addition to numerous smaller traders.
Javan lesnakes, Acrochordus javanicus, are harvested
for their skins (Shine et al., 1995; Sanders et al., 2010) and
to a much lesser extent as pets. Unlike G. gecko and A.
cartilaginea, A. javanicus is not always targeted directly by
collectors and is often taken opportunistically as by-catch
by shermen (Shine et al., 1995; this study). Filesnakes
are not CITES listed. Trade data for A. javanicus were
collected in November 2005–January 2006 in two cities
in East and South Kalimantan (six traders and middlemen)
and three cities in north, central (Riau), and south Sumatra
(11 traders and middlemen). These surveys included all of
the major A. javanicus exporters in Indonesia (G. Saputra,
personal communication), but omitted numerous minor,
unlicensed traders.
Asiatic softshell turtles, Amyda cartilaginea, are
exploited largely for meat and to a much lesser extent for
pets. This species is listed on CITES Appendix II. Data
from the trade in softshell turtles (mainly A. cartilaginea,
but also Dogania subplana, Pelochelys cantorii) were
obtained largely in September 1999 from traders in
Medan (North Sumatra) and Tembilahan and Palembang
(Riau), Sumatra, with additional data collected on an ad
hoc basis up to the time of this writing. Trade statistics
for the various species of softshell turtles are often not
distinguished; based on information from traders and
our own observations we estimate that 90–95% of the

85
Trade of reptiles in Indonesia
individuals in trade in these areas are A. cartilaginea.
Amyda cartilaginea in the meat-trade are sold by weight,
with individuals bought by the kilo and turn-over reported
in tonnes. We converted weights to individuals by
employing an ‘average’ weight of live A. cartilaginea in
trade (~5 kg) as observed at the trader’s facilities (Fig. 1).
All interviews were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia
and prices were collected in Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) and
US Dollar (USD); the former are here converted to USD
equivalents using the exchange rate at the time of survey
(between 8,025 and 9,470 IDR to one USD). The trade we
monitored was carried out openly, and there was no need
to resort to undercover techniques to obtain the relevant
data; we did not purchase any animals or products during
the survey.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Quotas and harvest methods
Traders of G. gecko stated that this species is harvested
mainly if not exclusively in Java, as this is where the
exporters of this species are located - transportation
of geckos from other parts of Indonesia to Java is not
considered to be economically viable. Within Java there
is a strong focus of G. gecko harvesting from East Java
(Fig. 2). Twenty-four thousand individuals / year are
permitted to be harvested from the island of Java, 1,000
from neighbouring Bali, and the total for Indonesia is
50,000 individuals. Of this, 5,000 are intended for local
use, while the remaining 45,000 are for export, as live
animals for the pet industry. There is no quota for the skin
or medicinal trade. The export quota (for pets) is realized
every year by 17 registered reptile exporters with quota
for G. gecko. With the exception of the relatively few
captured live for the pet trade (see below), G. gecko are
hunted using a long bamboo pole with two or three spikes
at the end, used for piercing the geckos.
Pet exporters (only pet exporters may obtain quota
for this species) apply for permits from the BKSDA
to acquire specimens in each of 23 designated areas
(distributed throughout Indonesia), pay a fee, and then
harvest the animals on Java, regardless of which province
their capture permits are designated for. Once the fees are
paid to the BKSDA ofces, traders indicated that there
was no follow-up or monitoring to ensure that the animals
are indeed taken from permitted areas, in the allocated
quantities.
Acrochordus javanicus is a fully aquatic species
harvested primarily in wetland areas of intensive shing
activity. Since at least 1999, the A. javanicus annual quota
for all of Indonesia has been 200,000 individuals; 180,000
for skin export, 19,100 domestic use and 900 for pet
export. In 2005, the quotas for Kalimantan and Sumatra
were 80,000 and 20,000 individuals, respectively. Traders
in Samarinda (East Kalimantan) source lesnakes from
the nearby Mahakam Lakes (Jempang, Melintang and
Semayang). Traders in Banjarmasin obtain filesnakes
mostly from the Katingan area in Central Kalimantan,
but also from the Sungai Negara wetlands in South
Kalimantan. At least 80% of the Kalimantan harvest
occurs in the wet season, when the main shing areas
are accessible by boat, and (according to collectors) the
snakes are most active. Of the lesnakes exported from
North Sumatra (Medan), 60% are imported from South
and East Kalimantan and 40% are sourced both from
throughout Sumatra (Medan area, Jambi, Lampung
and Palembang area). Filesnakes exported from South
Sumatra (Palembang) are harvested more locally (from
south Sumatra, Bangka and Lampung) and mainly in the
dry season.
Filesnakes are mainly collected as by-catch in bamboo
sh-traps (bubus) and shing nets, although collectors in
Sumatra also report catching lesnakes by electric shing
(Medan area) and baited shing lines (Palembang area).
Most of the harvest is apparently opportunistic; however
an exporter in Banjarmasin reported that shermen will
directly target lesnakes when the demand for skins is
high, and this dealer gives collectors advance payments to
harvest A. javanicus. Filesnakes are generally exchanged
alive from collectors to one or more middlemen, before
reaching the exporters’ warehouse where they are skinned
(Fig. 3). None of the traders surveyed specialized in A.
javanicus harvest - most collected a large range of reptiles
and amphibians for various trade purposes. The minimum
size accepted in the skinnery in Palembang was 1.2 metres
neck to vent length; only one other dealer imposed a size
Fig. 1. Asiatic Softshell Turtles Amyda cartilaginea
in an exporters’ warehouse in Indonesia. Photo: Kate
Sanders.
Fig. 2. Dried Tokay Geckos Gekko gecko ready for
export from Indonesia. Photo: Mark Auliya – TRAFFIC
Southeast Asia.

86
V. Nijman et al.
restriction (Banjarmasin), accepting only lesnakes of at
least 1 metre in total length.
Amyda cartilaginea are captured mainly using baited
shing lines and traps. Lines or steel traps are placed in
the water with a freshly killed animal as bait, with one
softshell caught per line and with 5–10 caught per trap.
Turtles are captured all over Sumatra, but clearly many
individuals are received from areas nearest the exporter’s
facilities, as well as near to middlemen and collectors that
deliver directly to the exporter, as they then pay less for
transportation costs. In 1999 the quota for A. cartilaginea
was 10,000 for Indonesia as a whole. For the harvest from
Sumatra (north Sumatra, Riau) the quota was set at 8,000.
The harvest of A. cartilaginea is allowed for pets and,
more recently, for consumption. Export of this species
is currently supposed to be regulated by a size limit, but
traders claim this is not strictly enforced.
Numbers harvested
Twenty four thousand G. gecko are permitted to be
exported from Indonesia for use as pets only, as stipulated
by the national quota. However, data provided by the
traders, and corroborated by our observations during visits
to traders, 1.2 million G. gecko, kiln-dried, are exported
from Indonesia (Table 1). These are shipped completely
outside of the quota system to China, dead and dried, to
supply the demand for medicinal use (C.R. Shepherd and
M. Auliya, unpublished data) (Fig. 4). This species is also
in domestic use for various medicinal purposes (Nara,
2000), however the volumes are negligible compared to
those involved in the international trade. According to
those involved in the trade, the shipments are exported
to China.
Traders of A. javanicus from ve towns reported a
combined annual harvest of between 310,000 and 330,000
individuals (Table 2). This included approximately
100,000 individuals from the Mahakam Lakes in East
Kalimantan, >100,000 from the Katingan area in Central
Kalimantan, and >50,000 from the Sungai Negara
wetlands in South Kalimantan (Table 2). At least 20,000
specimens were reported to be harvested annually from
North and South Sumatra; harvest in Riau was minimal,
with only the occasional and opportunistic collection
of unusually large specimens (Fig. 5). Most traders
sent dried skins to Jakarta (Indonesia’s capital) for re-
export mostly to European (primarily Italy and Spain)
and US markets. Two exporters (in Medan and Jakarta)
manufacture nished products (mostly handbags, wallets
and belts) for international export. Exporters reported
that demand (and hence prices paid) for A. javanicus
skins fluctuates considerably, depending on current
fashions in luxury reptile leather. At the time of survey,
A. javanicus skins were in relatively high demand. Even
in years of low demand, full quotas of A. javanicus skins
are harvested and stockpiled by reptile exporters in
Singapore (G. Saputra, personal communication). Most
traders reported that neither catch rates nor average body
sizes of lesnakes had declined in recent years; however,
exporters in South Sumatra stated that they were able to
Trader Staff employed Reported weekly turn-over
dry season
Estimated annual
turn-over1
Surabaya 40 14,000 550,000
Malang 7 7,000 270,000
Semarang and Kudus 25–40 (at two separate plants) 10,000 390,000
Table 1. Summary statistics of trade in dried Tokay geckos (Gekko gecko) from three traders in East and Central
Java, Indonesia.
1 Based on an 8-month dry season, with turn-over halved during the wet season, and a realization of around 90% of
Town (traders) Reported
monthly turn-
over wet season
Reported
monthly turn-
over dry season
Reported or
estimated annual
turn-over
Reported capture localities
Kalimantan
Samarinda 1 13,600 2,500 85,000 East Kalimantan
Samarinda 2 20,000 East Kalimantan
Banjarmasin 1 32,000 60 160,000 Central – South Kalimantan
Banjarmasin 2–4 6-800 2–300 5–6,000 C, W, E Kalimantan
Sumatra
Medan 1 40–50,000 S, E Kalimantan (60%), Sumatra
Medan 2–3 160– 200 160–200 2,000–2,500 North Sumatra
Pekanbaru <10 <10 <100 C. Sumatra
Palembang 1–7 200–250 6–700 3,500–4,500 S. Sumatra, Bangka
Table 2. Javan lesnake (Acrochordus javanicus) trade in two cities in Kalimantan and three cities in Sumatra, with
reported or estimated turn over and capture localities.

87
Trade of reptiles in Indonesia
obtain fewer lesnakes than in previous years and that the
average size of harvested lesnakes was smaller.
Amyda cartilaginea is traded for the international pet
trade, but these numbers are dwarfed by those exported
for the meat trade. Of all the turtles traded for the meat
trade, A. cartilaginea was valued highest in Sumatra.
Exporters in Medan, and from smaller centres in Riau,
export large quantities of A. cartilaginea largely as to
supply the demand in China and Hong Kong. At the time
of the survey, exporters in Medan send off daily shipments
of 3–5 tonnes each of live specimens on ights to China,
whereas exporters in Tembilahan shipped them by sea
to Singapore from where the majority were re-exported.
Amyda cartilaginea were observed up to weights of 40
kg but exporters have a clear preference for the smaller
individuals, with the highest prices (per kg) paid for
individuals <5kg (Table 3). At the time of the survey,
traders from Tembilahan did not take in large specimens,
as according to the traders, these were not accepted
by Hong Kong. At the time of the survey, collectors,
middlemen and exporters all indicated a decrease in
numbers, allegedly due to the increasing scarcity of the
turtles, but, at the same time, reported a decrease in prices
paid. More recent observations suggest that this trend has
continued and that volumes have signicantly dropped
due to over-exploitation.
Assuming a price of USD 1.00 for G. gecko, USD
10.00 for A. javanicus and USD 10.00 for a kg of A.
cartilaginea, the export values are in excess of one million
USD / year for G. gecko, three million USD / year for A.
javanicus and 10 million USD / year for A. cartilaginea.
The real value of G. gecko and A. cartilaginea trade must
be considerably higher as only a small number of traders
were visited.
Numbers quota versus actual harvest
Our estimates of actual harvest and export quantities far
exceeded quotas for all three species. Surveys of just
three G. gecko exporters revealed that approximately
31,000 individuals are harvested per week. In total, some
1.2 million G. gecko are exported per annum, exceeding
Indonesia’s quota of 50,000 by an order of magnitude.
The annual quota for A. javanicus was 200,000 in 2005,
Fig. 4. Tokay Geckos Gekko gecko packed for shipment
from Java, Indonesia to markets in China. Photo: Mark
Auliya – TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
Fig. 3. Skin being removed from a Filesnake
Acrochordus javanicus. Photo: Kate Sanders.
Town Turn-over
weight
week1
(tones)
Turn-over
individuals
week
(average 5 kg)
Turn-over
individuals week
(average 3 kg)
Annual turn-over
(individuals)
Reported export2
(individuals)
North Sumatra
Medan 1–2 14 2,800 4,700 140,000–240,000 120,000–150,405
Riau
Tembilahan 1–2 2 400 700 20,000–30,000 40,000–47,795
Palembang 4800 1,300 40,000–70,000
1For Medan turn-over is based on what is reported for A. cartilaginea by one trader, whereas for Tembilahan and
Palembang it is based on the notion, as reported by traders, that A. cartilaginea comprise 40% of the volume of trade.
2 The Directorate General of Fisheries report on export of A.cartilaginea; it appears however that other species are
included in this total and the lower estimate is based on information supplied by traders in Medan assuming that some
80% of the softshell turtle trade comprises A. cartilaginea
Table 3. Asiatic softshell turtles (Amyda cartilaginea) trade in Sumatra in 1999 based on our total weight
conversions (see Methods).

88
V. Nijman et al.
with 180,000 intended for international export (900 live
for pets, the remainder as skins) and this was exceeded by
a factor of two in the facilities surveyed alone. This trend
is not new. In 1999, annual quotas for A. cartilaginea
for the entire country were greatly exceeded in just
two provinces. For some species, such as A. javanicus,
specimens are mostly collected as by-catch, in signicant
quantities, and therefore it is very likely that they are
harvested and traded without the appropriate permits.
We have no indication that the seven provinces
included in our study are exceptional in volume of reptile
trade, with Samedi & Iskandar (2000), for instance, listing
East Kalimantan and Riau as having the provinces with
the least amount of trade in turtles and tortoises in 1997
(with 518 and 20,628 individuals exported, respectively),
and South Kalimantan (69,320 individuals) and North
Sumatra (238,912 individuals) as the most. Hence we fear
that the trade dynamics we describe may be typical, and
that the lack of enforcement of wildlife trade regulations
is symptomatic for the situation in Indonesia.
Captive breeding
At least two companies have licenses for captive breeding
and export of G. gecko. Whether equivalent licenses
are held for A. cartilaginea is unknown and should be
a priority for future investigations. No captive-breeding
licenses have been issued for A. javanicus; however,
captive breeding is unlikely to be commercially viable for
Acrochordids given their low growth rates and delayed
maturation (e.g. Houston & Shine, 1994). Those involved
in the trade question whether (commercial) captive-
breeding takes place of G. gecko and A. cartilaginea.
According to reptile traders in Indonesia, prices are far
too low to make captive breeding of these species an
economically viable option, as the investment and scale
is far too large compared to the return and, as a result,
there is likely no commercial captive breeding of this
species in Indonesia. This was further confirmed by
exporters in Java, who stated to TRAFFIC researchers
that all the Tokay geckos are wild-caught (C.R. Shepherd
and M. Auliya, unpublished data). At about a dollar a
head this species is amongst the cheapest reptiles to be
exported from Indonesia, and with a purchasing price of
a few dollar cents for a wild-caught individual there is no
nancial incentive to captive breed geckos.
With slow growth rates, and a low purchasing
price of USD 2.15 for a 10–15 cm long wild-caught
individual (note that under optimal conditions it takes
close to a year to attain this size, cf. Saad et al., 2003),
commercial breeding of A. cartilaginea in Indonesia is
not an economically viable option. Dealers involved in
the trade of reptiles in Indonesia state that this species
is not captive bred and have suggested that exporters
often claim wild-caught species as captive bred to avoid
quantity restrictions imposed by the quota - there are no
limits on the numbers of captive bred specimens that may
be exported.
Enforcement of wildlife trade regulations
It is clear that the majority of the trade in the three species
examined in this study is not carried out in accordance
with Indonesia’s national legislation. Although there are
several regulations and guidelines in place in Indonesia
to regulate the trade in freshwater turtles, snakes and
geckos, few of the collectors, middlemen, and especially
the smaller traders, abide by these rules. Our observations
suggest that certainly the exporters in these species are
fully aware of the law and CITES regulations, and as such
we consider the trade to be illegal. Despite its illegality,
trade is carried out in an open manner, with blatant
disregard for the law, clearly demonstrating a serious
lack of enforcement, and hence little deterrent for illegal
activity.
As a result, harvest and export continue to greatly exceed
quotas, and according to many individuals involved, this
has resulted in signicant local declines in traded species,
indicating that harvest levels are unsustainable. Although
G. gecko (2006) A. javanicus (2005) A. cartilaginea (1999)
Trapper 0.05–0.07 No data 1.25–4.98
Middlemen 0.08–0.11 2.15–2.69 2.49–11.21
Collectors 0.13–0.26 2.70–6.80 2.49–24.92
Exporters (Indonesia) 1.00–1.15 10.00–17.00 (alive) 16.00 (small, alive)
Retailer (abroad) 10.00 (USA, alive), 2.00
(China, dead)
No data No data
Table 4. Approximate selling prices (in US dollar) of Tokay geckos (Gekko gecko) Javan lesnakes (Acrochordus
javanicus) and Asiatic softshell turtles (Amyda cartilaginea) in Indonesia; prices from exporters and retailers were
quoted in US dollars, whereas the other prices were quoted in Indonesian Rupiah and are here converted to US
dollars at the exchange rate at the time.
Fig. 5. Filesnakes Acrochordus javanicus lled with
water before the skin is removed. Photo: Kate Sanders.

89
Trade of reptiles in Indonesia
for meaningful quota-setting, non-detriment ndings are
required to be carried out, this has not been done for many
reptile species in Indonesia and as such, there is no sound
scientic evidence for any of the species in trade regarding
a numerical limit for harvest that would be considered
sustainable without affecting the survival of populations
in the wild. Non-detriment ndings should be carried out
and take into consideration the levels of illegal trade. It is
clear that if reptile trade is to be sustainable in Indonesia,
existing regulations must be sufciently enforced by the
relevant authorities and by the reptile trade industry itself.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Amir Hamidy and David J.
Gower for their contribution to Acrochordus surveys in
Palembang, South Sumatra. We gratefully acknowledge
Mark Auliya, Andre van Meer and George Saputra for
their valuable comments and information. We thank the
reviewers for constructive comments on the paper.
REFERENCES
Amir, M., Sugardjito, J. & Boeadi (1998). The Scientific
Authority of CITES, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences,
LIPI. Mertensiella 9, 17–20.
Auliya, M (2010) The conservation status and impacts of trade
on the Oriental Rat Snake Ptyas mucosa in Java, Indonesia.
Petaling Jaya: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
Auliya, M. & Shepherd, C.R. (2007). Verhängnisvoll - der Ruf
des Tokehs. Terraria 4, 100–101.
Broad, S., Mulliken, T. & Roe, D. (2003). The nature and extent
of legal and illegal trade in wildlife. In The trade in wildlife.
Regulation for conservation, pp. 3–22. Oldeld, S., (ed).
London, Flora and Fauna International, Resource Africa and
TRAFFIC International.
Grieser-Johns, A. & Thomson, J. (2005). Going, going, gone:
The illegal trade in wildlife in East and Southeast Asia.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Gu, H.F., Xia, Y., Peng, R., Mo, B.H., Li, L. & Zeng, X.M.
(2011). Authentication of Chinese crude drug gecko by DNA
barcoding. Natural Product Communications 6, 67–71.
Houston, D. & Shine, R. (1994). Low growth rates and delayed
maturation in arafura lesnakes (Serpentes: Acrochordidae)
in tropical Australia. Copeia 1994, 726–731.
Nara, N. (2000). Kediri punya Sate Bekicot dan Semur Kobra.
Kompas, 26 June, 34.
Nijman, V. (2010). An overview of the international wildlife
trade from Southeast Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation
19, 1101–1114
Nijman, V. & Shepherd, C.R. (2007). Trade in non-native,
CITES-listed, wildlife in Asia, as exemplied by the trade
in freshwater turtles and tortoises (Chelonidae) in Thailand.
Contributions to Zoology 76, 207–211.
Nijman, V. & Shepherd, C.R. (2009). Wildlife trade from
ASEAN to the EU: Issues with the trade in captive-bred
reptiles from Indonesia. Brussels: TRAFFIC Europe Report
for the European Commission.
Nijman, V. & Shepherd, C.R. (2011). The role of Thailand in
the international trade in live CITES-listed reptiles and
amphibians. PLoS One 6(3): e17825.
Nijman, V., Todd, M. & Shepherd, C.R. (2011). Wildlife trade as
an impediment to conservation as exemplied by the trade
in reptiles in Asia. In Biotic evolution and environmental
change in southeast Asia. Gower, D.J., Richardson, J.E.,
Rosen, B.R., Rüber, L. & Williams, S.T. (eds). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (in press).
Nooren, H. & Claridge, G. (2001). Wildlife trade in Laos: the
end of the game. Amsterdam: NC-IUCN.
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., Bickford, D., Nijman, V. & Sodhi, N.S.
(2010). Boosting CITES. Science 330, 1752–1753.
Saad, C.R., Alimon, A.R., Tong, H.H. & Roustaian, P. (2003).
Practical diet evaluation with hatchlings of soft-shell turtle,
Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, in the tropics. Journal of
Applied Ichthyology 19, 62–63.
Samedi & Iskandar, D.T. (2000). Freshwater turtle and tortoise
conservation and utilization in Indonesia. In Asian turtle
trade: Proceedings of a workshop on conservation and trade
of freshwater turtles and tortoises in Asia, 106–111. Va n
Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L. & Rhodin, A.G.J. (eds). Chelonian
Research Monographs No. 2.
Sanders, K.L., Mumpuni, Hamidy, A., Head, J.J. & Gower,
D.J. (2010). Phylogeny and divergence times of lesnakes
(Acrochordus): Inferences from morphology, fossils
and three molecular loci. Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution 56, 857–867.
Shepherd, C.R. (2000). Export of live freshwater turtles and
tortoises from North Sumatra and Riau, Indonesia: a case
study. In Asian turtle trade: Proceedings of a workshop on
conservation and trade of freshwater turtles and tortoises in
Asia, 106–111. Van Dijk, P.P., Stuart, B.L. & Rhodin, A.G.J.
(eds). Chelonian Research Monographs No. 2.
Shepherd, C.R., Sukumaran, J. & Wich, S.A. (2004). Open
season: An analysis of the pet trade in Medan, Sumatra
1997–2001. Petaling Jaya: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
Shepherd, C.R. & Nijman, V. (2007a). The trade in bear parts
from Myanmar: an illustration of the ineffectiveness of
enforcement of international wildlife trade regulations.
Biodiversity and Conservation 17, 35–42.
Shepherd, C.R. & Nijman, V. (2007b). An overview of the
regulation of the freshwater turtle and tortoise pet trade
in Jakarta, Indonesia. Petaling Jaya: TRAFFIC Southeast
Asia.
Shine, R., Harlow, P., Keogh, J.S. & Boeadi (1995). Biology and
commercial utilization of Acrochordid snakes, with special
reference to karung (Achrochordus javanicus). Journal of
Herpetology 29, 352–360.
Soehartono, T. & Mardiastuti, A. (2002). CITES – Implementation
in Indonesia. Jakarta: Nagao NEF.
Webb, G.J.W. & Vardon, M.J. (1998). Reptile harvests,
sustainable use and trade. Mertensiella 9, 45–60.
Accepted: 13 December 2011