This is a very long read, however the key point here is a paragraph near the bottom that I surrounded with *****'s. It just goes to show you that you don't know what your getting with an imported boa...even if you know the country it was shipped from. The address to the site is at the bottom of the post.

Part 2. Guyana Situation Analysis

Reptiles/Amphibians

The Cooperative Republic of Guyana is the largest of the three Guianas in size and population. With a population approaching 740,000 inhabitants in an area of 216,000 km_, it is, like Suriname, one of the least populated tropical countries in the world. Ninety percent of the people live along the coast or 10% of the area so the interior remains largely unpopulated. However, the interior of Guyana is more accessible than that of Suriname and there is a road system linking Guyana to Brazil, Venezuela and Suriname. Already in 1993, 9.1 million hectatres of the estimated 16 milion ha of forest in Guyana were under lease by logging concessionaires (Reichart, H. A., et. al., 1997).

Guyana does not have the protected areas, Natural Parks and Reserves that have made Suriname famous. Indeed there is only one small National Park, Kaeiteur in Region VIII, which covers 63,000 hectares and takes up less than one-tenth of one percent of Guyana's area, as compared to Suriname's parks 7%. However, other areas are currently under consideration as protected areas.

Overview

Guyana has been a very active exporter of wildlife for decades, particularly psittacines (Roet, Mack, Duplaix, 1981). In 1984, for instance, CITES reported that Guyana exported 51,671 psittacines compared to Suriname's 1,764. Not surprising that there have been charges of over-exploitation (Thomsen, J. B. & A. Brautigam, 1991) and rampant smuggling from Venezuela (Desenne and Strahl, 1991). Today, a better legal framework, including a quota system introduced in 1985, manages the wildlife trade more effectively.

Legal Framework and Hunting Regulations

Guyana ratified CITES in 1977 but had no permitting entity and no laws to meet the legal requirements mandated by CITES . In 1986 the Wildlife Services Division of the Ministry of Agriculture was established as the permitting agency to control the export trade in wildlife. Draft Wildlife Trade legislation was prepared in 1987 to address Guyanan's requirement under CITES but it was not adopted by Parliament. A moratorium was then placed on the wildlife trade, effectively banning all legal exports, from January to October 1987, while more comprehensive legislation was drafted and a new set of quotas devised. The amendments to the new regulations placed emphasis on standards for the holding facilities, requirements for transport and veterinary inspections. In 1988, when the trade had re-opened, closed seasons and quota allocations among the exporters were implemented.

A second moratorium shut down the wildlife trade from February 1993 to November 1995 when the European Union, CITES and the international community reported that Guyana's harvest levels were detrimental to the wild populations. During these two moratoria, Suriname continued its wildlife export trade. CITES put considerable pressure on the government of Guyana to develop adequate wildlife laws and regulations. These two export trade bans created economic hardship to both the traders and the Amerindian communities in the interior who harvest the wildlife.

Now strong new legislation is in place. The Environmental Protection Act of 1996 and the Species Protection Regulations of September 1999 have completely changed the infrastructure of Wildlife Management and permitting in Guyana. However, the draft Wildlife Management and Conservation Regulations, which deal with broader wildlife management issues, are currently undergoing consultation with the various stakeholders and and are not currently in force. The new Environmental Agency, fully staffed and functioning since 1998, reports directly to the Office of the President. Its mandate covers various aspects of forestry, pollution, mining, wildlife conservation regulations and implementation international treaties requirements including CITES.

The Scientific Authority comes under the National Biodiversity Advisory Committee (NBAC) whose members include: representatives of the 1) EPA, 2) the Guyana Forest Commission, 3) the Ministry of Fisheries, Crops and Livestock, 4) the Ministry of Agriculture, 5) the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 6) the University of Guyana, Department of Biology, 7) the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, Wildlife Unit, Guyana Natural Resources Agency and 8) the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission. The NBAC does not conduct any research on species or ecosystems itself but is responsible for identifying areas for research and encouraging this research by the EPA. The NBAC also meets frequently and consults with the traders' associations. The EPA uses the quotas set in 1987 but has recently increased some quotas based on the findings of a parrot survey made in 1997 (see below).

Revenues generated by the licensing of stakeholders, and from the permitting and export of wildlife, including taxes on revenues, are placed in a special fund to cover the operating costs of the Wildlife Division, including enforcement -- about US $ 112,000/year.

However reports from both the EPA and the stakeholders indicate that while fully operational, EPA has not implemented all of its mandates such as the issuing of licenses for trappers, middlemen and exporters, and the impositions of fines. Also the new regulations have met with some resistance on the part of the stakeholders and consultations are taking place to modify them.

Some confusion remains as to the implementation also, of regulations during this transition period. The Fisheries Department used to monitor the export of ornamental aquarium fish, now the EPA licenses it, even though Fisheries personnel still handles the inspections. Some new aquarium fish exporters appear on the EPA list of licensed exporters but not on the list at the Fisheries Department.

We were impressed with the level of motivation and commitment of the directors and senior staff at the EPA. All realize that this is a new beginning, a clean slate and that the next few years will determine whether the new legislation is a success. Activities are being planned including field surveys for key species, training sessions for enforcement personnel and the revision of the hunting regulations.

Enforcement and record keeping

EPA promised "no exceptions" enforcement but so far there have been no prosecutions due to insufficient resources for effective monitoring and response. Reports indicate that, on occasion, other measures have been used in response to non-compliance such as the withholding or withdrawing of export licenses. For instance, contraventions of the Act specify a one to three month suspension of the trader's license, effectively stopping commercial activities ­ a considerable loss of revenue if it occurs during the open trapping season. The fine structure is detailed and the fines set are high by Guyanese standards.

Like Suriname, Guyana's Wildlife Enforcement, Veterinary inspectors and Customs agents need training and identification manuals for the species listed in the quota list.

Record keeping has only just been computerized. When we requested detailed information covering a four-year period we were unable to obtain detailed records that Suriname provided quickly and willingly. After six weeks and repeated requests, we received a two-year list of CITES and non-CITES exports but no information as to destination countries (Table 6).

Export of CITES Species and quotas

Guyana has been one of the major exporters of parrots in South America. The capture of parrots make up the majority of the income for trappers, middlemen and exporters. In 1999, the revenue realized from parrot exports alone was close to US $ 1 million (Table 6b).

In 1997, Andrew Kratter conducted a survey of the parrot populations in Guyana and made specific quota recommendations, without consulting local ornithologists or the international bird conservation groups such as Birds International. For instance, he advised that Guyana maintain its zero quotas for all its rare parrots except for Pionus fuscus (quota of 500 suggested) and Amazona dufresnia (quota of 200). In 2001 Guyana raised the quotas for these two from 0 to 780 (P. fuscus), 0 to 520 (A. dufresnia), as well as 0 to 780 for Deroptyus accipitrinus.

Export of Non-CITES Species and quotas

When the quota system was established in 1987, the figures were based on the review of the export records for different species between 1981-1986 by the Wildlife Services Division and were approved by the Senior Minister of Agriculture. They were extremely high, roughly ten times higher than Suriname's export rate.

Guyana has specialized in the non-CITES reptile trade: 21 species of CITES-listed reptiles and 38 non-CITES species of reptiles are listed on the quotas. In 1999, Guyana exported over 36,000 non-CITES reptiles, while Suriname exported 12,286 individuals of 22 species of non-CITES reptiles.

Quotas have been set in Guyana for more CITES and non-CITES mammals than Suriname including: 2,200 Saimiri sciureus, 600 Cebus apella and 242 Cebus nigrivittatus for which Suriname has a zero quota. Other mammals exported by Guyana but not by Suriname include: Choloepus didactylus (110), Coendou prehensilis (44), Cyclopes didactylus (10), and Potos flavus (110) among others. Such a discrepancy between the export quotas of these two neighboring countries is undesirable (Tables 9, 10).

The ornamental aquarium trade in Guyana is well established but due to time constraints we were unable to investigate this.

Stakeholders: Wildlife harvesters and exporters

The number of fully licensed traders increased between 1993 and 2001 from 9 to 28 ­ as in Suriname (Table 7 which lists 36 traders, some not fully licensed). Now the EPA has also placed a "freeze" on the licensing of new traders. Again the established traders, particularly those in associations, resent the newcomers sharing their quotas. EPA restricts the licenses of the new traders to deal with only certain categories of wildlife depending on their area of expertise. However, they usually permit them to share the parrot quota, as it is a major source of income.

Middlemen and trappers are licensed. They supply and pay for their own equipment. The middlemen that we interviewed stated that they did not understand the zero-quota system. They said that zero-quota parrots (A. dufresnia, A. festiva, A. macao, A. severa) were so plentiful that farmers considered them pests! Since then the quotas set for 2001 have removed the zero-quota status for A. dufresnia and A. festiva (520 may be exported/year).

As in Suriname, Amerindian communities in the interior trap and harvest the wildlife and sell it to middlemen. It is a preferred seasonal source of cash revenue.

Exporters expressed an interest in receiving expertise and assistance in setting up captive breeding or ranching projects. They are willing to provide the facilities but need training in captive management and husbandry techniques. This would be a costly proposition. Some exporters suggested exporting breeding stock to breeding facilities overseas to save time and reduce expense. However, such breeding facilities already exist in Europe, Asia and the United States.

Hunting Pressure

As in Suriname there are no hunting regulations, enforcement or bag limits in the interior.

Recreational hunting is common along the coast, especially for ducks and sea birds. Unlike Suriname, hunters are not licensed and hunting is not regulated yet in Guyana.

Unlike Suriname there appears to be no commercial bushmeat trade in Guyana.

Reported Smuggling

*****************************************************************
Smuggling was not witnessed first-hand in Guyana because we spent only one day in Georgetown. However, we received many reports of smuggling from traders, middlemen and biologists both in Guyana and Suriname. Usually Suriname was said to smuggle wildlife out of Guyana. Guyanese sources denied the smuggling parrots or reptiles from Suriname into Guyana even though we saw this first-hand in Suriname on at least two occasions.
*****************************************************************

A biologist in Guyana reports that A. dufresnia (quota = 520), A. festiva (520) , and D. accipitrinus (780), all zero-quota species until this year, are often seen in cages or observed awaiting shipment at collection points in the interior. He suggested that they were leaving through Suriname but Suriname has had a long-standing zero or low quotas for all these species including in 2001: A. dufresnia (70), A. festiva (0), and D. accipitrinus (300).

Findings and other considerations

Guyana's new regulations have imposed a trade regulation, including:
1. The licensing of trappers, middlemen, exporters, and holding facilities with annual fees.
2. Regular veterinary inspections of the holding facilities and the inspection of all shipments prior to departure.
3. Export quotas (based on past exports and, for parrots, a recent survey.)
4. Sanctions including fines and the suspension of licenses for contraventions of the regulations.
5. Computerized record keeping and reporting procedures.
6. The revenues from taxes derived from exports, fees from the sale of export permits and licenses and fines are placed in a special fund that finances EPA's operating costs and special projects such as wildlife surveys.

Recommendations for Guyana

Export Quotas have been increased for 2001, including the lifting of Zero Quotas for certain CITES-listed parrots (Table 10). These should be reviewed. It is recommended that the Amazona festiva and Deroptyus accipitrinus quotas be returned to zero and Amazona dufresnia and Pionus fuscus quotas be reduced to 200, or below, for the 2001 season and beyond.

Export quotas and FOB prices set by Suriname and Guyana should be harmonized to discourage smuggling between both countries. Low or zero quotas are meaningless in assuring the protection of a species if there is a high quota literally across the river in the other country. Zero-Quota or protected species of one country should not appear on the export quota list of the other. When a species in one country has a zero quota and is heavily exported by its neighbor encourages smuggling. Suriname exports the Scarlet Macaw (100 per year), Guyana does not. (See Table 10). Guyana exports Cebus nigrivittatus, Suriname does not. Species that are accidental or marginal in a one country should also not appear on the quota list of either country.

Species which are endemic and protected in one country and only have tiny populations in the other should not appear on the Quota list of the other country: the Blue Poison Arrow frog Dendrobates azureus occurs only in one locality in the Sipaliwini Savannah Nature Reserve in Suriname where it is protected with a zero export quota. This species appears on the Quota list of Guyana (500/year) but is found only near Gunn's strip, due west of the Sipaliwni. A species similar in appearance, Dendrobates tinctorius, occurs in both countries. (Table 10)

Provide annual or bi-annual audiovisual TRAFFIC presentations to update Customs and EPA personnel about the international legal and illegal international wildlife trade.

Provide Customs and enforcement personnel with species ID manual with illustrations of the species targeted by the wildlife and plant trade.

Monitoring, species data and volume is needed on the ornamental fish trade, rare woods, medicinal plants, and shark fins.

http://www.2docstock.com/Suriname/Reports/Trade Report/contents.html