CITES and CBNRM
CITES and CBNRM
Proceedings of an international symposium on “The
relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable
use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries”
Max Abensperg-Traun, Dilys Roe and Colman O’Criodain (editors)
INTERNATIONAL UNION
FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
WORLD HEADQUARTERS
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland, Switzerland
mail@iucn.org
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0002 Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 46
www.iucn.org
About IUCN
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our
most pressing environment and development challenges.
IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human livelihoods and greening the world
economy by supporting scientific research, managing field projects all over the world, and bringing
governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice.
IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,200
government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s
work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and
private sectors around the world.
www.iucn.org
About IIED
Founded in 1971 by economist Barbara Ward, IIED is one of the world’s most influential policy
research organisations working at the interface between development and environment. We are a key
contirbutor to many international policy processes and frameworks, including the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment and the UN convention on climate
change and biological diversity.
Our strength lies in our unique combination of research and action – generating robust evidence and
know-how that is informed by a practical perspective acquired on the ground. IIED is distinguished
by bridge-building: between policy and practice, local and global, rich and poor, government and
private sector, and across diverse interest groups.
Working in partnership is key. By forging alliances with individuals and organisations across contexts
and scales, IIED helps strengthen poor people’s voices in decision making and ensures that national
and international policy better reflects the agendas of poorer countries and communities.
www.iied.org
CITES and CBNRM
Proceedings of an international symposium on “The
relevance of CBNRM to the conservation and sustainable
use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries”
Max Abensperg-Traun, Dilys Roe and Colman O’Criodain (editors)
The international symposium on
“The relevance of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) to the conservation and sustainable use of
CITES-listed species in exporting countries”
was held in Vienna, Austria, 18 – 20 May 2011, and was co-organized by the Austrian Ministry of the Environment and the
European Commission.
ORGANISATIONS THAT HAVE PROVIDED TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do
not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or other participating
organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication
do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organizations.
This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the International Institute for
Environment and Development, London, UK.
Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland in collaboration with the International Institute for
Environment and Development.
Copyright: © 2011 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized
without prior written permission from the copyright holder(s) provided the source is fully
acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is
prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder(s).
Citation: Abensperg-Traun, M., Roe, D. and O’Criodain, C., eds. (2011). CITES and CBNRM.
Proceedings of an international symposium on “The relevance of CBNRM to the conservation
and sustainable use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries”, Vienna, Austria, 18-20 May
2011. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and London, UK: IIED. 172pp.
ISBN: 978-1-84369-827-2
Cover photo: Competition for water between local communities and elephants near the
Matambwe Headquaters of the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania, by Ludwig Siege
Produced by: International Institute for Environment and Development
Printed by: Park Communications Ltd
Available from: IIED
80-86 Grays Inn Road
London WC1X 8NH
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0020
info@iied.org
http://pubs.iied.org/
A catalogue of IIED publications is also available.
The relevance of CBNRM for the conservation
of the Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus,
CITES Appendix II) in Argentina
Tomás Waller, Patricio Micucci, Obdulio Menghi, Mariano Barros and Juan Draque, Fundación
Biodiversidad, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Introduction
International trade in reptiles, involving millions of skins each year, is an integral part of the
exotic leather industry, which has existed for more than half a century. In the mid-1990s it
was estimated that at least 10 million reptiles were hunted each year to be processed and
manufactured into products, mainly destined for markets in the USA, Japan and Europe (Jenkins
and Broad 1994).
In Argentina, commercial trade in snake leather probably began in the 1930s and peaked in the
1940s (Gruss and Waller 1988; Micucci et al. 2006). According to CITES trade data, between
1980 and 1999, 320,000 Yellow Anaconda skins were traded worldwide, but mainly to USA and
Europe. In those years, Yellow Anaconda skins on the world market originated principally in
Argentina and Paraguay. Since then, the volume of trade has declined sharply, mainly due to
restrictive measures adopted by both countries (Micucci et al. 2006).
As happened with practically all Squamata in trade, the exploitation of anaconda historically
was carried out in an ad-hoc way and was certainly not based on scientifically sound guidelines
or even basic biological information (Waller et al. 2007). However, Yellow anacondas were and
remain common animals throughout their range (Strüssmann and Sazima 1993; Strüssmann
1997; Micucci et al. 2006). Favourable ecological attributes in combination with environmental
and socio-economic factors, explain why Yellow anacondas withstood unregulated high off-take
harvest levels during more than 20 years (Waller et al. 2007).
In the early 1980s, major concerns about the conservation status of historically traded species,
as well as a progressive improvement in CITES implementation, led to the establishment
of management programs as an option to unregulated utilization. However, in spite of the
experience gathered with caimans and crocodiles, practically nothing was done to manage
snakes and lizards effectively despite the fact that trade in these species involves millions of
skins annually (Scott and Seigel 1992; Dodd 1993).
Hunting of Yellow anacondas diminished abruptly in Argentina when trade was effectively
banned in 1999. However, at several locations in the Province of Formosa, anacondas were still
opportunistically captured, but their hides were smuggled through to Paraguay for export.
In 2001, a study in Formosa assessed the feasibility of harvesting Yellow Anaconda skins in a
sustainable manner (Micucci et al. 2002). In 2002, as a direct result of that research, the CITES
Management Authority of Argentina asked Fundación Biodiversidad, an NGO, to design a
management program for the species.
Reconciling local traditions with conservation
The Yellow Anaconda Management Program (YAMP) was conceived in 2002, with the objective
of reconciling the traditional use of the species by local communities with its long-term
conservation. Additional goals were to promote biological research on anacondas, avoid
resource misuse and waste, and maximize local income in a manner that would favour resource
and habitat appreciation (Micucci et al. 2006).
Section 3. Community-based conservation: Case studies • 93
From a conceptual perspective, the YAMP is based on an Adaptive Management Approach
(AMA; Holling 1978), well suited to a system with high levels of uncertainty. It provides the ideal
conceptual framework for exploited species for which research and population monitoring
programs, using standard methods, are often not practically feasible to implement.
Figure 1. Distribution of Yellow anacondas in Formosa: La Estrella Marsh and Eastern
humid Chaco plains in grey
The Province of Formosa in the far north of Argentina was selected for implementing the
harvest program due to the abundance of anaconda habitat, a long-standing hunting tradition,
and a favourable governmental predisposition towards sustainable use (Fig.1). Formosa has
responsibility for establishing and controlling procedures and guidelines for executing the
program at the local level. Fundación Biodiversidad (FB) leads and executes the annual technical
program. Major reptile skin exporters finance and participate in the program under a mechanism
established by the CITES Management Authority of Argentina.
Formosa still harbours large tracts of relatively well-preserved ecosystems and a significant
ethnic population. The main indigenous inhabitants are the Pilagá, Toba and Wichí. Formosa is
entirely located inside the Gran Chaco eco-region (1,000,000 km2), which is mostly an alluvial
sedimentary plain, shared between Paraguay, Bolivia and Argentina. The ecosystems of the Gran
Chaco are unique but were poorly understood by scientists until recently. Nowadays, thorn natural
forests and extensive palm savannas are progressively being converted to agriculture and cattle
production which usually involves vegetation clearing, burning and the draining of wetlands.
Anacondas are abundant everywhere in Formosa’s Humid Chaco plains but particularly in the
Pilcomayo River floodplain locally known as La Estrella (Fig. 2). La Estrella is a highly seasonal
marsh some 250 km long and 3,000 km2 in area. Every year, rainwater originating in the upper
basin of the Pilcomayo River floods the region entirely for 8 months. The YAMP was adopted by
local communities living in the La Estrella floodplain, where a subsistence economy of rural and
indigenous people coexists with a reasonably dense population of anacondas.
Local inhabitants at La Estrella Marsh are mainly indigenous people and creoles. Poverty is
widespread and the main land uses are livestock rearing and forest resource exploitation. Since
94 • CITES and CBNRM
Figure 2. La Estrella Marsh during its seasonal flooding
La Estrella is located in the arid part of Chaco, the local economy depends on the seasonal
flooding, which is the main source of water for the people, and nutrients for the grasses and
livestock during the dry season.
Harvest control
The harvest of Yellow anacondas involves three fundamental economic actors: hunters, local skin
buyers and exporters (Fig. 3). Middlemen (sub-local buyers and transporters) are not allowed to
participate. Anaconda collectors are rural indigenous and creole community members. About
300 families participate in anaconda hunting in the Province of Formosa each year. Usually, the
local skin buyer (LSB) is also a food supplier or market-man and has the logistical means for
transporting and stockpiling snake hides.
During April and May a series of trips are organized to register and inform LSBs on the year’s
guidelines. These activities are aimed at regulating hunting effort, although the Program provides
no limit to the number of hunters (in practice there are a finite number). These are closely related
to the skin buyers, due to economic and cultural factors. Immediately before the opening of
the harvest (June), the Program notifies the LSBs on the skinning pattern to be used in the
forthcoming season. Taking into consideration the cloacal spurs and other features, Program
hides can be recognized by changing the way of skinning (skinning pattern) every year in order to
avoid illegal hunting and stockpiling.
The Program requests hides of a minimum size of 230 cm taken from the neck to the anal scale.
This measurement corresponds to a live specimen of approximately 200 cm snout-vent length
(SVL) (Micucci et al. 2003). Since female maturity occurs on average at 165 cm SVL (Waller et al.
2007), this precautionary provision is intended to allow the anacondas a reproductive opportunity
before being hunted.
The harvest takes place from June to August when Yellow anacondas do not exhibit any
reproductive behaviour. The cool weather and the wide range of temperatures during Formosa’s
winter foster thermoregulatory behaviour in the anacondas that allows hunters to find and
capture the snakes by hand.
Section 3. Community-based conservation: Case studies • 95
Most of the hunting requirements are implemented when the hunters bring their skins to the
LSBs for sale, since the skins that do not comply with Program standards are worthless for
the LSBs. Besides, on a periodic basis, the LSBs facilities are visited by a representative of the
exporters (purchase agent) together with a provincial wildlife officer with the purpose of buying
the skins. At that stage, skins that comply with the Program standards are individually tagged in
situ for control and future tracking.
Figure 3. YAMP operative scheme (modified from Micucci and Waller 2007)
96 • CITES and CBNRM
Figure 4. Yellow anaconda skins produced at La Estrella Marsh between 2002 and 2009
The tagged hides obtained are periodically transported to a single warehouse located in the
city of Formosa. At the end of the season, and before leaving the province, hides are sexed (by
spurs and bone remnants), measured, and field tags replaced by export tags that comply with
the provisions established by the CITES Management Authority of Argentina. The export tag is
required before transporting skins out of the province and is a prerequisite for the issuing of a
CITES export permit.
Monitoring sustainability
The Program makes no effort to control directly the number of animals harvested; in fact,
Anaconda populations are managed by controlling hunting effort and on the basis of “sustained
yield” harvest theory (Caughley and Sinclair 1994). Specifically, we test surplus-yield production
models (i.e., Schaefer 1954; Fox 1970), which have been used mainly in fisheries, but also for
terrestrial fauna.
Before establishing the YAMP, the legal exploitation of anacondas was banned, but an illegal
harvest took place with total disregard of size considerations. According to traders and local
dealers interviewed, Formosa’s production involved ca. 20,000 skins per year above 15 cm wide
(Micucci et al. 2002, 2006). This hide width would correspond to a skin length of 150 cm from
a live anaconda about 135 cm SVL (Micucci et al. 2002). In demographic terms this means that
practically all (90%) of anacondas, males and females, older than 1 to 1.5 years of age, were
vulnerable to being hunted under a market-driven regime (Fig. 5; Waller et al. 2007).
With the current minimum size policy (200 cm SVL) we have been able to substantially reduce
overall harvest levels, for juveniles and adults, compared to the historical trade. Current
production, without mediation of quotas, represents a management-derived reduction of harvest
to a quarter of Formosa historical values (5,000 vs. 20,000 skins), and a 40% reduction on female
vulnerability to hunting (Micucci and Waller 2007).
The impact of the harvest on the population status of anacondas is monitored through traditional
indicators (i.e. CPUE vs. effort, size and sex structure of the harvest). Total numbers of snakes
caught are insufficient to predict population trends if not considered in conjunction with hunting
effort data. In this sense, appraisals of harvest intensity are made from yield curves, analyzing
the behaviour of capture volumes in relation to applied effort. These curves are obtained from
effort and CPUE data (Micucci and Waller 2007). Since the rationale of sustained yield models
implies that a harvest represents a specific proportion of the total population, a reduction of
the crop would be expected, as in the case of a population reduced by natural conditions (i.e.
drought, fires), but this does not mean over-harvesting in that year (Caughley and Sinclair 1994).
Section 3. Community-based conservation: Case studies • 97
Figure 5. Natural distribution of 500 illegal skins seized in Paraguay (Micucci and Waller 2007).
Current minimum size limits established by the YAMP are substantially more conservative than
historical minimum sizes in trade
Actual harvest monitoring also takes into consideration the significant correlation between the
number of hunters and gross capture. More hunters usually implies more effort, for increased
numbers of snakes caught, and vice versa (Micucci et al. 2007). Year 2006, for example, was
a ‘bad’ year for captures in the YAMP, because a low number of hunters participated, and the
overall effort was diminished relative to previous seasons. This drop corresponded with an
increase of traditional labour demand and with the indiscriminate distribution of unemployment
benefits to hunters and their families by the government (since 2003). In other words, if the
YAMP does not mediate in bettering skin prices (as it is continually doing) the system tends to
stabilize in such a way that exporters’ actual profits are in total harmony with actual structure. If
exporters are reluctant to increase skin prices, as an incentive to harvest, then the harvest will be
reduced. It is thus an effort-mediated system, with a commercial collapse always anticipating to
a biological collapse.
In the event of overexploitation, we would expect to find a substantial change in the size structure
of anaconda’s populations and/or a reduction in the average size of the skins harvested. Taking
into consideration that no significant consistent change in population structure nor reduction in
the average size of the population (based on average skin sizes) has occurred, we can accept
that current harvest guidelines are appropriate for the sustainable management of yellow
anacondas in Argentina (Micucci and Waller 2007).
Distribution of benefits
The Yellow Anaconda Program is economically structured by Government (federal and
provincial), exporters (5), hunters (about 300), local buyers (7), and the NGO in charge of the
technical/scientific Program.
Table 1 shows the partitioning of benefits between different Program participants, based on the
average export value of a Yellow Anaconda skin (USD 50). The governmental sector receives
the smaller part (4.2%). In fact, the government delegates the Program execution to an NGO in
order to encourage fast and direct allocation of funds to research and monitoring. In this sense,
Program technical activities receive 14.8% of the export value. Hunters and local buyers earn
13.3% all together, but three-quarters of this amount goes to the hunters. Externality compensation
and community devolution by the private sector accounts for approximately one third of the
international value of a skin. Although earnings at the local community level represented in 2002
a three-fold increase when compared with prices then paid by the illegal traders, we strongly
encourage better prices in pursuit of an optimum allocation of benefits (Micucci and Waller 2007).
98 • CITES and CBNRM
Figure 6. A hunter with a newly caught Anaconda
Table 1. Anaconda Program benefits partitioning on a 50 USD skin price basis
Program actor USD %
Provincial and export taxes 2.1 4.2
Program running costs (NGO) 7.4 14.8
Hunters and local buyers 6.7 13.3
Stockpiling logistic expenses 3.1 6.2
Total expenses per skin 19.2 38.5
Exporters income 30.8 61.5
Final considerations
The commercial use of wildlife in many countries took place in a largely unmanaged and ad hoc
way for almost a century. During the last 20 years attempts have been made to change these
practices, around the world, through the establishment of sustainable utilization programs for
different animal species. Different levels of success have been achieved in the path to this goal, but
they provide precious initiatives into the ways to use the economic value of components of natural
ecosystems, often threatened by traditional land use patterns, to achieve conservation goals.
Lack of scientific data on species and ecosystems is frequently argued as a constraint when
trying to introduce scientifically sound management policies. Yet history shows that in most
cases, management decisions rarely emerge from pure research projects. They usually result
from a strong commitment between agencies, NGOs, users, and other stakeholders. The
‘adaptive management’ approach (Holling 1978) has proved to be an efficient tool for overcoming
the problem of dealing with the uncertainty in natural ecosystems, and it is a reasonable solution
to the drawback of initial lack of biological information on most managed species (Webb 2002).
One significant constraint to apply innovative management procedures for a traditionally used
species uses to be the existence of long-established trade networks. Existing utilization patterns
are hard, or impossible to modify from inside and the manager becomes a mere spectator of
what is occurring. Since there is no perception of risk, traders and all other participants are rarely
enthusiastic about accepting any fundamental change in procedures that could diminish their
Section 3. Community-based conservation: Case studies • 99
profit margins. A short but effective local trade ban, such as that which was applied in the Yellow
Anaconda case during the late 1990s, or the pressure of foreign agency recommendations and
provisions (i.e. CITES, European Union stricter domestic measures, or the USA Endangered
Species Act) has sometimes been effective in modifying the inertia and encouraging acceptance of
innovative new management prescriptions to what has long been essentially a traditional harvest.
Figure 7. Anaconda skins nailed to soil for drying in a house backyard at La Estrella area
In recent years, the harvesting of charismatic wild animals has been the focus of increasing
attention and criticism, and YAMP was no exception (Rivas 2007, 2010; Waller and Micucci
2008). The controversy on wildlife use in part reflects the broad spectrum of opinion regarding
‘appropriate’ uses of particular species, or indeed, of any wildlife species. A misunderstanding of
the fundamental differences between ‘conservation’ and ‘animal welfare’ principles can confuse
public debate about such issues and prevent their resolution by objective, logical means. A
television-mediated culture that actually promotes emotional feelings against the ‘direct killing’
of star species, is interpreted by some as a panacea for conservation, yet it often ignores the
real forces that drive current land use patterns throughout the world. Population growth, poverty,
increased demand on traditional commodities and globalization are, in fact, the main causes of
the massive wildlife losses that generate national and international concern.
The YAMP is a valid pro-active attempt to encourage alternative landscape use models, that
has the potential to counter the loss of species and ecosystems we are experiencing worldwide,
due to traditional land uses, like livestock rearing and industrial agriculture and forestry. Besides
the economic impact to local people and traders, the YAMP has stimulated – and continues
stimulating – intense research (Mendez et al. 2007; Waller et al. 2007). The tools applied to control
and monitor the anaconda harvest have been adequate and cost-effective, providing definitive
evidence that the harvest is sustainable and not detrimental to the survival of the wild population.
The approach may have broader application where similar harvests are being undertaken with
other species in other countries.
100 • CITES and CBNRM
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Victoria Lichtschein (National Secretary of Environment and
Sustainable Development, Argentina), Luis Basterra, Raul Quintana, Hugo Bay and Orlando
Mendoza (Ministry of Production and Environment, Formosa) for their trust and support during
the different stages of our work and to Ernesto Alvarenga (Formosa) and Guillermo Puccio
(Fundación Biodiversidad – Argentina) for their continuous collaboration.
References
Caughley, G. and Sinclair, A. 1994. Wildlife Ecology and Management. Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Boston, USA.
Dodd, C.K. 1993. Strategies for snake conservation. In: R.A. Seigel and J.T. Collins (eds.),
Snakes: Ecology and Behaviour, pp. 363-393. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
Fox, W.W. 1970. An exponential surplus-yield model for optimizing exploited fish population.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1:80-88.
Gruss, J.X. and Waller, T. 1988. Diagnóstico y recomendaciones sobre la administración de
recursos silvestres en Argentina: La década reciente. TRAFFIC Sudamérica, WWF, Secretaría
CITES. Buenos Aires.
Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley, London.
Jenkins, M. and Broad, S. 1994. International trade in reptile skins. A review and analysis of
the main consumer markets, 1983-1991. A TRAFFIC Network Report, TRAFFIC International.
Cambridge, UK.
Mendez, M., Waller, T., Micucci, P.A., Alvarenga, E. and Morales, J.C. 2007. Genetic population
structure of the yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) in Northern Argentina: management
implications. In: R.W. Henderson and R. Powell (eds.), Biology of boas and pythons, pp.405-415.
Eagle Mountain Publishing Lt. Utah, USA.
Micucci, P.A. and Waller, T. 2007. The management of Yellow Anacondas (Eunectes notaeus) in
Argentina: From historical misuse to resource appreciation. Iguana 14(3):161-171.
Micucci, P.A., Waller, T. and Alvarenga, E. 2006. Programa Curiyú. Para la conservación y
aprovechamiento sustentable de la boa curiyú (Eunectes notaeus) en la Argentina. Etapa
experimental piloto 2002-2004, Formosa. In: M.L. Bolkovic and D. Ramadori (eds.), Manejo de
Fauna Silvestre en la Argentina. Programas de uso sustentable, pp.77-92. Dirección de Fauna
Silvestre, Secretaría de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable. Buenos Aires.
Micucci, P.A., Waller, T. and Buongermini, E. 2002. Programa para la conservación y
aprovechamiento sustentable de la boa curiyú (Eunectes notaeus) en Argentina. Estudio de
Prefactibilidad). Informe Técnico # 1. Unpubl. Report. Fundación Biodiversidad Argentina,
Buenos Aires.
Micucci, P.A., Waller, T., Alvarenga, E. and Lerea, G.E. 2007. Programa para la conservación
y aprovechamiento sustentable de la boa curiyú (Eunectes notaeus) en Argentina. Formosa.
Informe Técnico Zafra 2006. Unpubl. Report. Fundación Biodiversidad Argentina, Buenos Aires.
Micucci, P.A., Waller, T., White, E. and Alvarenga, E. 2003. Programa para la conservación
y aprovechamiento sustentable de la boa curiyú (Eunectes notaeus) en Argentina. Etapa
Experimental Piloto. Año I (2002). Formosa. Informe Técnico # 2. Unpubl. Report. Fundación
Biodiversidad Argentina, Buenos Aires.
Rivas, J.A. 2007. Conservation of Green Anacondas: How Tylenol conservation and
macroeconomics threaten the survival of the world’s largest snake. Iguana 14:74–85.
Rivas, J.A. 2010. Is Wildlife management business or conservation – A question of ideology.
Iguana 17(2):113-115.
Schaefer, M.B. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the
management of the commercial marine fisheries. Bulletin of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission 1(2):27-56.
Section 3. Community-based conservation: Case studies • 101
Scott, N.J. (Jr.) and Seigel, R.A. 1992. The management of amphibian and reptile populations:
species priorites and methodological and theoretical constraints. In: McCulloough, D.R. and R.H.
Barrett (eds.), Wildlife 2001: populations, pp. 343-368. Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, UK.
Strüssmann, C. 1997. Hábitos alimentares da sucurí-amarela, Eunectes notaeus Cope, 1862, no
Pantanal matogrossense. Biociencias, Porto Alegre, 5(1):35-52.
Strüssmann, C. and Sazima, I. 1993. The snake assemblage of the Pantanal of Poconé,
western Brazil: faunal composition and ecological summary. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and
Environment 28:157-168.
Waller, T. and Micucci, P.A. 2008. Anaconda conservation: A reply to Rivas. Iguana 15(1):51-53.
Waller, T., Micucci, P.A. and Alvarenga, E. 2007. Conservation biology of the yellow anaconda
(Eunectes notaeus) in Northeastern Argentina. In: R.W. Henderson and R. Powell (eds.), Biology
of boas and pythons, pp. 340-363. Eagle Mountain Publishing Lt., Utah, USA.
Webb G. 2002. Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife an evolving concept. Pacific
Conservation Biology 8: 12-26. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney, Australia.
102 • CITES and CBNRM
