Caviar Report to the European Commission Part I. Engler, M & Knapp, A. (2008). Briefing On the Evolution of the Caviar Trade and Range State Implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. Cop 14). A TRAFFIC Europe Report for the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Part II. UNEP-WCMC (2008). Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and Tracking of Caviar Permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database. A Report to the European Commission. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. This report was prepared in two parts by TRAFFIC and UNEP-WCMC for the European Commission. Part I, prepared by TRAFFIC, examines trends in the reported legal caviar trade globally and in the EC since the listing of all Acipenseriformes in 1998, based on reported import and export data from the CITES Trade Database, as well as examining the illegal trade in caviar in the EC through seizures reported in EU-TWIX. Additionally, the briefing focuses on the implementation in main caviar range States of the main measures set out in CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev.CoP14), including the labelling of caviar containers, registration of processing, (re-)packaging, and exporting facilities, and range State communication of this registration information to the CITES Secretariat. Part I also presents a brief overview of issues examined in more detail in Part II, including range State quota compliance and requirements regarding the provision of copies of export permits and re- export certificates for the inclusion in the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database. Part II, produced by UNEP-WCMC, includes a brief summary of EC caviar trade trends and takes a species-based approach to assessing EC imports and range State quota compliance. Results of tracking caviar permits held within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database are presented to highlight any incidences of potentially illicit trade. Finally, compliance with the permit reporting requirements of Resolution Conf. 12.7(Rev. CoP14) is assessed in depth for EC Member States and main exporting range States. Parts I and II are presented together as a comprehensive overview of the caviar trade both globally and within the European Community. 5 ¢ y TRAFFIC ry Oy | the wildlife trade monitoring network P gig dors UNEP Ww CMC Ke Ot PART I. BRIEFING ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE CAVIAR TRADE AND RANGE STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF CITES RESOLUTION CONF. 12.7 (REV. COP 14) Maylynn Engler and Amelie Knapp October 2008 Report prepared for the European Commission, Contract 070307/2007/479422/MAR/E2 TRAFFIC the wildlife trade monitoring network Report prepared by TRAFFIC Europe for the European Commission under Contract 070307 /2007/479422/MAR/E2 All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and may be reproduced with permission. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publicaton must credit the European Commission as the copynght owner. The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission or the TRAFFIC network, WWF or IUCN. The designation of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Commission, TRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark ownership is held by WWF. TRAFFIC ts a joint programme of WWF and IUCN. Suggested citation: Engler, M & Knapp, A. (2008). Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14). A TRAFFIC Europe Report for the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........:cccsccsssscesscssscsscssesscesscesaccesscssnsscnscssnscsnssesesscssssensssessees 5 INTRODUCTION..........cccccssccesssscssssccsscscssceccsssscsscscscscccsenseessnnscsssnassessnasesscnssesencessssosers 6 METHOD ............cccccssccesssccesssccssscccsscccsssssscssccssssscsssscseneressnsesssnssssonsssesscesscsosssssosssseoonnes 8 Sturgeon wild catch and aquaculture production in range States .............essseseers 8 Evolution of the Caviar trade .............sssssscsscccsscssssescsseessosessescssssessnssssscccscscesecccsesesecooes 8 Pega! trade i) COVE, cescssscccececornceceseeceooosssossscsconstsnscescsnssosesorscseeanssodesan decgerntocesnneascovssaerenesaneecenesnsntsogetsteresssaanetss 8 Mlegal trade in Caviar in the EU.......ssssssssssssssssssssssceseesssesssessssssssssessessescessesssuuuusnsccececceceeecececececerssssessnanansnanten saa 9 Range State compliance with Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) .........c-sssesseeeeee 9 STURGEON WILD CATCH AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN RANGE SIVA cecsccccecceccceccscscccssccescccccccccascsscacosecccscnscceccecccscssccesnecccsceccscscecesssosesssesecaonsssacsnassces 10 EVOLUTION OF THE CAVIAR TRADE..............ssssscscccsssscssssssssssssssessccscssssssesesses 12 The legal trade in Caviar............sccccscccsssssceserccesscsenesceessccensscecssccsssscesesccssssccesssssceenns 12 NIGP ON tAER OMS tasescscssercseccechevasenstestscsczestascoseszsescssoneccoccscerstcocsentertertocsocesscssegontecctesnsteedtrressucsastascbastothastaaiaitavessosteausaersee etaseaeetteeees 12 EXP ONEU CIS er cscasectesesesesscesestrseee Bae) Re-export trends ............ mY) Trade routes into the EU. 22 Exports and quotdS............0+0 5) Val LeTOfithexcavict hi trad etcetera cerecste ister cncclaccctsvecesceat ccecsceats oes soa tand ccavsussdcstou ancedvaaisaisiteeaseieoioete ee mE 27 Caviar SeiZuresiim Che) BW ino occs..5..cccccncocoascsosscocoocecssacsessessecsasnccesesssssosssossscccscosccscssceres 29 eaatensecanccuacesnncenccaracesstsnsesccceuscsuse suratuaserneconacensnceseatecnesenessucescuseccreonerertetreren entree 32 Registration of licensed facilities for caviar export, processing and repackaging 32 Range State reporting to Secretariat on the issuance of CITES permits............. 33 Gaviarslabellingecccccccscsssccscecoccccecacescacccenesconcsscaccessccrscorscecresescesteecsesuscceeenncceeecee ee 33 Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................scscsssssssssssssccnssevssscsscssssscssssessscescssoseseees 36 General tremSterscccscacssssccesestcccessucssucsscacecsassasccaacsscacoasaacssszesccacseccconsacsascssscescsessoccecesssse 36 IS ELIF SC OMI GUCIMTILIGS bmscessenscantesssssensacacassaserastssscssvecotearseacsrasscscaserstssnsvcosnaaatastccasstastrertreesteatuntersecenmemtepeeeretcesstesedrc caressa 36 GQVIGIAGUGIILILIGS eoreeeeteererccaroce vncerencrovesecatesanetcoostoczsectcsetecocastitencar ovecssecnaceesnatesTepesccvons cooreconsatieratsb ctsbusa tt toscesessuberesvescstorons 36 Valter O fst e COVICI (1D C ves soeea cc ccccnscncecctotcrenccoasstececancssgbce tere ccctessecousesseroaessscesvoastestobecstoaussscecvuiusscoviasscessanessecascuaiisescoes¥s 37 CITES QUOCOS [Ola COVIG I pesccecretrett escestessecenscascsevescevocsveevcrccescocecceccstovocasetsossacsatesccloceesofetesobsonssttesssuscstsvtecteobeceteecersvissovopsesasasaated 37 EXPOMESHOfi CAVIGM DY: STUN ZCOM!SPECIOS eresececcsecsscescssseseececrcrertvsvnnssnvsssvecsevececarevecerecrcrevorvosstastastetsssseecessecsersererceecerererserensanrts 38 GavidrgSCIZUFES HI they EU ee seewetaret ass ecsocaczcecsecevsnsonscenecvosstsvoustavasszsscstorensncdecoceechcooootucs) esadtssrecatcoelseceucestenctttovetaasisbasties 38 Registration of caviar processing and (re)packaging facilities ............scsccccsssssssssssssssssssssssesessessessssssssssnssssssssssssseseess 38 RECOMMENMALIONS.............ecccccssrrcsscrccsssrscccscsccssscscessssscesscsscssssesescsscessscscsscesesssccesseseees 39 ANNEX |: RANGE STATE REPORTED EXPORTS COMPARED TO CITES EXPORT QUOTAS 1998-2006 .............scccssscsssssssssssssssssscsscsessssesssssccssssescsssceseecesesees 4l ANNEX 2: CITES RESOLUTION CONF. 12.7 (REV. COP 14).........cssscsssscsssccssceeneee 42 Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project has been realized within the framework of the service contract 070307 /2007/479422/MAR/E2 with the European Commission. The authors would like to thank the CITES Secretariat, John Caldwell of UNEP-WCMC, as well as TRAFFIC colleagues Steven Broad, Richard Thomas and Rob Parry-Jones for reviewing this report. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 5 INTRODUCTION Caviar is produced from the roe of sturgeon and paddlefish, in the Acipenseriformes family. There are 27 species of Acipenseriformes, including 25 sturgeon species and 2 paddlefish species. This briefing will focus mainly on the Eurasian species from which significant quantities of caviar are produced and found in international trade. These include sturgeons from the Caspian basin; the Russian Sturgeon Avipenser gueldenstaedtii, Fringebarbel Sturgeon A. nudiventris, Persian Sturgeon A. persicus, Sterlet A. ruthenus, Stellate Sturgeon A. ste/latus, and Beluga Hwso huso, as well as the two Amur River sturgeon species Amur Sturgeon A, schrenckii and Kaluga H. dauricus. Populations of wild sturgeon have declined over the course of the 20% century and continue to be under significant threat from a variety of factors such as overexploitation, poaching and illegal trade, habitat destruction, migratory barriers and pollution of waterways!. In 1997, all species of sturgeon and paddlefish were listed in the CITES Appendices. Since this listing came into force in April 1998, all CITES Parties have been required to report their trade in specimens of Acipenseriformes, including caviar, in their CITES Annual Reports. The purpose of this briefing document is to illustrate the evolution of the caviar trade since 1998, and to assess the implementation of certain measures by selected range States, as laid out in Reso/ution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), on the conservation of and trade in sturgeons. Selected range States have been chosen based on significant reported quantities of wild caviar exported from those countries since 1998. This briefing illustrates the reported wild catch and aquaculture production of sturgeon in range States, and presents an overview of the analysis of CITES trade data for the legal caviar trade into the EU, including information about the main EU importers, main countries of origin, main trade routes and the source of the caviar (e.g. whether sourced from the wild or from aquaculture). Additionally, exports of caviar by range States as reported to the CITES Trade Database are compared with CITES export quotas, to assess whether any range States have exceeded their quotas. This briefing also presents information on caviar seizures in the EU, in order to identify Member States in which the most seizures have taken place and the main countries from which illegally-traded caviar is entering, or is destined for, the EU. Information has also been compiled on the main measures implemented by major range States relating to the caviar trade as detailed in CITES Reso/ution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), focusing on the labelling of caviar containers, registering of legal exporters and processing plants including aquaculture operations and repackaging plants. In 2000, a universal caviar labelling system was introduced through Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), requiring range States to implement a uniform marking system for caviar containers, using non-reusable labels. Since 2002, Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) has been amended to require range States to register processing and repackaging plants in their territories and provide a list of these facilities and their official registration codes to the Secretariat. Also since 2002, it has been obligatory for CITES Parties not to accept the import of sturgeon species from stocks shared between different range States unless export quotas have been established for that year by the range States concerned and have been communicated by the Secretariat to the Parties. ' Ludwig, A. (2008). Identification of Acipenseriformes species in trade. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 24 (Suppl. 1), pp. 2-19. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 6 As of 2000, range States have also been required under Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) to provide copies of each export permit for caviar to the Secretariat, and to the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database after its launch in November 2007. This briefing also presents a compilation of information on the provision of copies of all export permits and re-export certificates by range States to the CITES Secretariat or UNEP- WCMC, for the inclusion in the UNEP-\WCMC Caviar Trade Database and whether this has occurred within specified deadlines. UNEP-WCMC has produced a complementary caviar report for the European Commission which is presented as Part II to this briefing, using the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database to access detailed caviar information, including data in the Caviar Database that is not publicly available, undertaking permit by permit analysis to investigate any discrepancies, a detailed analysis of quota compliance, and the identification of potential illegitimate use of CITES export permits based on information in the Caviar Database. Where information in the UNEP-WCMC report complements that which is presented here, references to the UNEP-WCMC report Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and Identification of Potential Illegitimate Uses of CITES Permits are provided (hereafter referenced as UNEP-WCMC, 2008). Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 7 METHODS Sturgeon wild catch and aquaculture production in range States Wild catch and aquaculture production quantities of sturgeon for main range States? exporting caviar were derived from the FAO Fishstat Plus database for the years 1998-2006. Figures are reported in tonnes. Evolution of the caviar trade Legal trade in caviar For the purposes of this briefing, the term caviar was interpreted as per the definition given in Reso/ution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), which defines caviar as the processed unfertilized eggs (roe) of Acipenseriformes species. An analysis of trade data from the CITES Trade Database was conducted for reported caviar trade into the EU-27> from 1998 to 2006, the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available. Since the listing of sturgeon species in CITES Appendix II only came into effect on 1 April 1998, trade data for 1998 only cover April-December 1998. Only data with the import term “eggs”, and only units of grams (converted to kg for consistency) or kilograms (kg) were included. This excludes live, fertilized eggs used for aquaculture purposes as these are generally classified as “eggs (live)”. Additionally, data with the source code for confiscated or seized specimens (I), pre-Convention specimens (O), and source unknown (U) were excluded. The source codes for animals and parts or derivatives thereof which were bred in captivity (C) or born in captivity (F), and specimens originating in a ranching operation (R), were grouped into the term “C” to include all caviar produced in aquaculture operations. Data were analysed to determine the main EU importers, and main countries of origin for wild caviar and caviar produced from aquaculture, main trade routes into the EU, the source of reported caviar imports (whether wild or aquaculture), and trade trends from 1998-2006 for wild caviar and caviar produced from aquaculture both globally and focusing on reported EU imports. Reported exports from main range States were compared with EU import records, and also with CITES export quotas for these years. Since 2000 was the first year that caviar export quotas were implemented under CITES, caviar export quotas are only available for 2001 onwards. A\n analysis was also conducted to determine trends in the reported import value of caviar, using data derived from the external Trade Database of Eurostat, using the CN8+ commodity code for caviar. The EU-27 grouping was used to determine the total reported import value to the EU, as well as reported import value from outside the EU (extra-EU trade) and within the EU (intra-EU trade). ? Le. range States with the highest global exports of caviar in recent years: Azerbaijan, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran (referred to hereafter as “Iran’’), Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation. > The EU-27 was used for all analyses, and for the purposes of this document will be referred to simply as the EU. + CN8 codes are 8-digit Combined Nomenclature (CN) Customs codes, which are used to classify different categories of Customs commodities. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP!4) Illegal trade in caviar in the EU Information on reported caviar seizures in the EU was compiled from the EU-TWLX3 database, for the years 1998-2006. Data with the description “CAV”, and units of mass (in kg) were analysed. This analysis of illegal trade in caviar in the EU focused on total seizures per year in the EU, as well as Member States in which the most seizures have taken place, and the main countries of origin for caviar seized in the EU. Species of sturgeon for which the most seizures have been reported were identified, as well as the most common routes between country of origin and Member State of destination. It should be noted that trends in seizures derived from EU-TWIX data are only indicative of patterns of illegal trade, because Member States differ in their enforcement effort, in their reporting efficiency to EU- TWIX, and in addition methods of entering seizure data can vary among Member States (e.g. some data are not recorded at the species level). Range State compliance with Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP! 4) To determine range State compliance with the recommendations of Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) on the conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish, information on registration of caviar exporting, processing, and repackaging facilities in range States was compiled from the CITES register of licensed exporters and of processing and repackaging plants for specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish, at http://www.cites.org/common/resoufces/reg_caviar.pdf, consulted on 23 May, 2008. The CITES Secretariat was consulted in order to determine which of these range States have taken administrative and legal measures to allow for the labelling of caviar processed, packaged, or re-packaged in their country. Information was similarly obtained on whether one or several labels have been designed for these range States. Additionally, information was obtained through consultation with UNEP-WCMC on whether range States have been submitting export permits and re-export certificates to UNEP-WCMC or the Secretariat, for the inclusion in the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database as required under Reso/ution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14). > EU-TWIX is the European Union Trade in Wildlife Information Exchange, a database and mailing list developed as a tool to facilitate information exchange and international co-operation between law enforcement officials across the EU. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 9 STURGEON WILD CATCH AND AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN RANGE STATES Range State wild catch, or capture production, of sturgeon from 1998-2006 is illustrated in Table 1. Aquaculture production of sturgeon ts given in Table 2. These tables give a general overview of quantities of sturgeon caught and produced by aquaculture in main range States (where data is available), however it should be noted that these quantities refer to all sturgeon caught or produced, rather than being limited to quantities caught or produced for caviar. There is a significant difference between quantities of wild catch compared with quantities of sturgeon produced by aquaculture, with the latter being significantly greater. In addition, sturgeon wild catch has significantly decreased in quantity since 1998, in the majority of cases (Table 1). Conversely, aquaculture production in European inland waters has greatly increased over the same time-period, although the data do not indicate quantities at the species level and are unavailable for Asian aquaculture of sturgeon prior to 2003 (Table 2). Wild catch data were unavailable for Kazakhstan from 1998-2004, and for China for the entire 1998-2006 time period (Table 1). While Azerbaijan has historically reported small quantities of caviar produced from aquaculture (e.g. pre-1998), no caviar aquaculture production was reported from 1998-2006 (Table 2). For China, data on caviar aquaculture production were unavailable until 2003 onwards (Table 2). For the Russian Federation, aquaculture production was reported for both freshwater (European inland waters) and marine (Mediterranean and Black Sea) environments, however the vast majority of Russian caviar from aquaculture was produced in the freshwater environment, with marine aquaculture production only reported in 1999 (Table 2). Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 10 (p1d°D ‘A2y) LZ] Jud uoNnjosay §311D JO UOIZeJUBWIA]dU 339g aZUe4 pUe apes} 4EIAED 343 JO UOINJOAS By} UO BUyIIVg aseqeyep sni ye4systyy OV Woy posanaq] -awoy -(Qnuenb OJ9Z SIJBITPUT ‘aqquyrear BYP OU 9}PITPUT SUOTSSTLUO JO SYURTA ‘WON “o> JUTIe yA] BIS YIP[Y 2 ULIUeTTO pI SIo}J¥M purluy — sdomaA STOJEM PULTUT — LISW STIJCM PULTUT — LIS uoneIopay uvIssny ‘dds avpuasuaday TOIEMYSOTY TIPOMYSIT TOJEMYSITT oe. a. 2. eS. Loore [our | oore [soe | oor | 00st | osoc | 09st | oor [ett Leeks coc t ASS] | CU 9007 $007 v007 £007 T7007 ly 4 0007 6661 8661 Ulue 43 | : = : pe RRS ula 9007-8661 (3) Aaauenb dq ‘sazeig a8ues Ue Ul UONNpod aunqnoenbe Uoasunis :7 aIqeL “dds anpuasuaquy” eury) “dds anpuasuadinyy uvlteqrazy aseqeiep sn ieisysty OVY woy PrAled -a2H0s O[QUITVAR B]ep OU J}LITPUT SUOTSSTUTO JO SYULT -AION BIC YOU puv uvouvsspay] | “dds anpuasuadipy saqva purpuy — odomY siajea purpuy — adomg szajem purpuy — adomy siajea purpuy — ado SHUAY INA Masuaqiyy SHJO]J AIS 4dSUIG2I Mpavjsu. op]: ans ASU. aq? Kr uoneiapoayf uvISSny sia]¥A\ puryuy — odoin OSG OSMET STaVM pULU] — LISV “dds anpuasuaqigy SI9}UM PUL[U] — LISV SHID/Ia]S LasuaqiaEy qeicunezes SIa}VA\ puULTU] — UTS Ee SRUJMaaIpnU LasUaqiEy = sTa}eM PULL] — LIS\ OSnY OSHEY SIOJVA PULTU] — LISV “dds appuasuaqupy ued] SIOIVM PULTU] — vISy dds anpuasuadip uelteqrazy AeIe¢ ooh wax ee . 5 ee. ee 9007 $007 v007 £007 7007 10072 0007 6661 8661 eeu : Si shat ated : 9007-866! (2) Aaauenb Aq ‘saieig a8ues ule U! YD3eD PIM uoasinys :] ajqey EVOLUTION OF THE CAVIAR TRADE The legal trade in caviar The following tables and graphs illustrate the legal reported global and EU trade of caviar from 1998- 2006. All tables and figures in this section are derived from caviar data taken from the CITES Trade Database. Import trends The 27 EU Member States as a group represent the largest global importer of legal caviar, considering total tonnes (t) imported from 1998-2006 (Fig. 1). Over 97% of the EU’s reported caviar imports were sourced from the wild. After the EU, the US, Switzerland, and Japan are the next largest importers. Fig. |: Reported imports of caviar from wild catch and aquaculture production by importer and source code (t), 1998-2006 Quantity (t) EU Sin ee a is @ Aquaculture @ Wild catch Pee Sor ea ee Importer eat Losepeneresii| EU = EU-27, US = USA, CH = Switzerland, JP = Japan, RoW = Rest of World, CN = China. Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 12 Fig. 2: Reported annual global caviar imports, wild vs. aquaculture (t), 1998-2006 300 t= Quantity (t) Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database. Despite an increase in reported global imports of caviar from aquaculture, reported global caviar imports have declined from 1999-2006 (Fig. 2). Between 2001 and 2005, reported global imports of caviar from aquaculture have at least doubled every year (Fig. 2). Reported quantities of caviar from aquaculture in trade in 2006 were somewhat lower than in 2005, but this may be due to late reporting of 2006 trade data. Data for 2006 should be verified in 2009 or once data for more recent years are available, to determine whether this has been the case. It would also be interesting to see if this trend continues after 2006, when caviar trade data for 2007 and 2008 become available. It should be noted that trade in caviar produced from aquaculture within the EU and that is not exported outside of the EU would not appear in international trade data, because of the absence of internal border controls. This increase in the reported trade in caviar from aquaculture is consistent with the increasing trend in reported sturgeon aquaculture production (see Table 2, p. 11). Reported caviar imports to the EU and to other major importers have significantly decreased in quantity from 1998 to 2006 (Fig. 3). Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 13 Fig. 3: Reported imports of caviar from wild catch and aquaculture production by importer and year (t), 1998-2006 160 + 140 Quantity (t) i} 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year CH = Switzerland, CN = China, EU = EU-27, JP = Japan, RoW = Rest of World, US = USA. Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database. Within the EU, Member States that have imported the largest quantities of caviar from 1998-2006 are Germany and France, together accounting for about 75% of all reported EU imports, followed by Spain, and Belgium (Fig. 4). Almost all of these reported imports are of wild-sourced caviar, although France has the highest volume of reported imports of caviar produced by aquaculture, at 11 t. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 14 Fig. 4: EU Member State reported caviar imports by quantity and source code, (t), 1998-2006 250 + Quantity (t) g DE FR ES BE LU DK GB PL IT CZ (ep NL Fl Member State DE = Germany, FR = France, ES = Spain, BE = Belgium, LU = Luxembourg, DK = Denmark, GB = United Kingdom, PL = Poland, IT = Italy, CZ = Czech Republic, LT = Latvia, NL = The Netherlands, FI = Finland. C = caviar from aquaculture, W = wild catch. Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity. Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database. Export trends The main direct exporters of wild and aquaculture-derived caviar, according to exporter records, are the Caspian States: Iran, the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan (Fig. 5). Iran is by far the largest global exporter of wild caviar at 438 t, with no reported exports of caviar from aquaculture. The Russian Federation (138 t), Kazakhstan (95 t) and Azerbaijan (35 t) are the next three largest exporters by quantity, also with no reported direct exports of caviar from aquaculture. The main direct exporters globally of caviar derived from aquaculture operations are France (23 t), Italy (17 t), and the USA (9 t) (Fig. 5). Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) Fig. 5: Direct exports by reported exports (t), 1998-2006 Quantity (t) IR RU KZ AZ CN RO FR IT BG US UY DE Exporter IR = Iran, RU = Russian Federation, KZ = Kazakhstan, AZ = Azerbaijan, CN = China, RO = Romania, FR = France, IT = Italy, BG = Bulgaria, US = USA, UY = Uruguay, DE = Germany. C = caviar from aquaculture, W = wild catch. Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity. Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database. Direct caviar exports reported by species, range State, and year are presented in Table 3. More detailed information by species is presented in UNEP-WCMC, 2008. The Russian Federation had the highest total quantity of reported exports of caviar from A. gueldenstaedtii. Kazakhstan had the highest total export quantity of caviar from A. nudiventris, although exports from this species were only reported over a three- year period from 2000-2002, in both exporter and importer records. For A. persicus, Iran was the only range State with reported direct exports of this species, and has exported a total of 202 402 kg from 1998- 2005. China had the highest total of reported direct exports of A. schrenckii. Iran had the highest reported exports of Acipenser spp. (which is mixed, pressed caviar) and is the only range State to have traded this product in any significant quantities. Iran also had the highest total reported export quantity of A. stellatus, followed by the Russian Federation and then Kazakhstan, although if only exporter records are considered, Kazakhstan reported more exports than the Russian Federation, who did not report exports of any species after 2001. Similarly, China had the highest reported total quantity of caviar exports from H. dauricus based on exporter records only, however when importer records are considered, the Russian Federation appears to have exported a higher quantity than China. Finally, for H. 4wso, Kazakhstan had the highest reported exports of caviar from this species, followed closely by Iran. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 16 Ll (b1d°D “A2y) £7] Ju0d UORNjosaYy §3.11D JO UOeJUaWAa|dU! 333g aZUE4 pu ape. 4BIARD 343 JO UOIZNJOAS ay} UO SUuyalag ‘asequieq aprrl, SHLID ey) Woy paidepy -aun0s ‘aqupreae sprosaz 3a}70dxa Jo say0duN ou ayeorpur syURG “soe UT azz sandy asayj}-pasn ore spsosaz Joyodumt ‘a[qupeav Jou arom sprodaz J9jJ0dxa II :9ION [Lor pes | posse | ucier | cco. | ssotor | ssoset | ossset | oecsst_| Leg ost [7 eres [Seer | oraz seer [usec | ascot |ossar |iser | csce | Ec a 7 7 reer eae — eas vane eore—feree — | 6001z | 81 16L 99G7 197 Z809 rsre — [ocse —[ 9zor | 900 LE | £61 68L1 S96 LLPS 6LIL 619 992 0% | 8t9 S515 zSbS CEE 8SLZ OLS oreo [srs fort | oltt[eere forty [se dvs | tee 9£6 00€ 16d LI SLL 81 6L9 SE 770 8S OE CE t69 cFS EL 8SLL LE89 OLI IL 91S bbl rsol | €eLL | €896 zosez | GOS Ir | 919 bE 0S PL orsr «| OISE ~— | 8ZZI SOE [eaonr [osc [cor [0c [ore eos ies (ane | ceeo_—| Cen nS (CS (eee ee eae Gea ea) foscoc_|9cz___| wut | cam | cose | esne | aout | exeo__| ceae__| Co es OA Ee os SR Ge EE | L8T 69 zor zoz [$99 | ce90r_ | olde | srsre | vooor | oer |oserr | occ | bs eee ede bOLr 966 LItZ 1691 ce = Faso sor [cole [9596 [Loco | ceomt |orwst | soeec | secve [econ | joes [| [erez aeve [eos este | et | ieisz_ | ec 0c | eo 0c | L/6€ osts [sese | 8zle th yeI0.4 $007 y007 £007 7007 1007 0002 6661 8661 — 49340dx3 (3) 9007-866 | ‘1e340dxe pue uoxe Aq seIAed pjiM jo suodxa pariodas aug :¢ age) When total exports of wild caviar reported by direct exporting countries, versus those reported by direct importing countries are compared, there are some discrepancies in amounts declared in trade, as shown in Fig. 6. For Iran and the Russian Federation, importing countries have reported more caviar in trade from these countries than Iran and the Russian Federation have reported as exported. In the case of the Russian Federation, these discrepancies are likely a result of the Russian Federation not reporting exports of caviar after 2001 (Annex 1). Although the Russian Federation has submitted Annual Reports over this time period, it is unknown why exports have not been reported. Significant quantities are concerned, with discrepancies of 41 t from Iran and 54 t from the Russian Federation from 1998-2006. Given that countries should not be importing more than the quantity stated on the export permit, it is unclear as to how these discrepancies could have occurred. While these discrepancies may suggest that illegal trade could be occurring, it is also possible that lower amounts of exports are reported by exporting countries, compared to importing countries, for other reasons such as the inconsistent or erroneous recording of mass between Customs in different countries, purposeful under-declaration of quantities exported in order to incur lower tariff rates or duties, or the failure of exporting countries to report exports for certain years. Reported imports from Kazakhstan are also slightly higher, however for Azerbaijan, China and Romania importer records show lower quantities than export records. This may be as a result of importing counties incorrectly reporting imports; however the amounts concerned (2-7 t) are much lower quantities than the discrepancies for Iran and the Russian Federation. Fig. 6: Direct reported exports of wild caviar from main exporters, based on import vs. export records (t), 1998-2006 600 500 400 2 Recorded exports 2 300 F g w Recorded imports fej 200 100 IR RU KZ AZ CN RO Exporter IR = Iran, RU = Russian Federation, KZ = Kazakhstan, AZ = Azerbaijan, CN = China, RO = Romania. Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity. Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) For reported direct exports of caviar from aquaculture operations, quantities in trade are much smaller (Fig. 7). France as a caviar exporter shows the greatest difference between quantities reported in exporter records vs. importer records, at 7 t. Fig. 7: Reported direct exports of caviar from aquaculture operations (t), 1998-2006 @ Importer records w Exporter records Quantity (t) Exporter FR = France, IT = Italy, US = USA, UY = Uruguay, BG = Bulgaria, DE = Germany. Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity. Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database. Re-export trends Fig. 8 shows that Switzerland, Germany, the Russian Federation, France and the USA are the top re- exporters of caviar from 1998-2006, according to re-export records. Although the vast majority of reported re-exports are caviar from wild sources, France, Switzerland and Germany have re-exported a total of 9 t of caviar from aquaculture sources from 1998-2006. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 19 Fig. 8: Re-exports by reported re-exports (t), 1998-2006 Quantity (t) 3 CH DE URU FR US “AE PE DK) TR BE GB) LU 100 + 80 +- # of seizures Reporting country =| Note: Reporting country as “Unknown” is a result of an EU-TWIX reporting error. Source: Adapted from the EU-TWIX database. Few records of caviar seizures in the EU contain information about which sturgeon species the caviar was derived from. In fact, Table 8 shows that 7 450 kg (81% of total seizures) of seized caviar did not have information to the species level. Of the 5% of caviar seizures by mass for which these data were available, the most frequently seized caviar products were derived from H. huso, followed by A. stelatus and A. persicus. Tabl 8: Total caviar in the EU by species and mass (kg) Unknown (-) Acipenser baerit Aaipenser gueldenstaedtii Acipenser oxyrhynchus Alcipenser persicus Acipenser stellatus A.cipenser sturio* Acipenser transmontanus Huso dauricus Huso huso Grand Total 7 450 Source: Adapted from the EU-TWIX database. *Data recorded tn EU-TWIX as caviar from Aapenser sturio is likely to be the result of a reporting error, as this species that is not known to be harvested for caviar. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP!4) 31 RANGE STATE COMPLIANCE WITH RESOLUTION CONF. 12.7 (REV. COP! 4) Registration of licensed facilities for caviar export, processing and repackaging Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) recommends that to regulate trade in sturgeon products, as of 2000, range States should license legal exporters of specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish species, maintain a register of these licensed facilities which should be assigned official registration codes, and provide this information to the Secretariat. Table 9 summarizes information on registered caviar exporting, packaging, and reprocessing facilities in range States, as reported to the Secretariat as of 23 May, 2008. Table 9: Summary of licensed exporters and processing and repackaging plants for caviar, in main range States Processng/repackaging Ras anne remained: eosputialeel gre awed d.ninir:20" [ieee eR ore ee erate remem Ebécssianl Federation! niu mmne Lise OO) Ol *This facility is a caviar exporter/processor/repackager. Source: CITES register of licensed exporters and of processing and repackaging plants for specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish species, at http://www.cites.org/common/resources/reg caviar.pdf, consulted on 23 May, 2008. Some problems are apparent from the CITES register of licensed exporters and of processing and repackaging plants for specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish species: e CITES Parties have reported 64 t of direct imports of wild caviar from the Russian Federation from 2000-2006, but the Russian Federation has not registered any export facilities from which to export this caviar, although this is a requirement under Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14). Despite this, the Russian Federation has applied and been granted a CITES export quota for caviar in past years, and also for 2008. However, this issue requires further investigation as it is possible that it could be a technical problem, where Russian processing facilities are also acting as exporters but the Russian Federation has registered such facilities only as processing and (re-)packaging facilities. e ran’s registered caviar exporting, processing and re-packaging facility has been registered only since 2008, but Iran has applied and been granted significant export quotas for caviar in previous years, and e Although Iran and Kazakhstan have only one registered facility each, they have not submitted the official registration codes for these facilities. e Other than the main range States considered above, CITES data indicates that the US and Uruguay are also direct exporters of caviar to the EU (from aquaculture). While Uruguay has registered and assigned registration codes for an exporting, processing and repackaging facility, the US has not registered any facilities. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 32 Range State reporting to Secretariat on the issuance of CITES permits Since 2000, under Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) range States are required to submit copies of all export permits and re-export certificates to the CITES Secretariat within one month of issuance. As of 2007, these permits are included in the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database. While general levels of compliance to this requirement are good, compliance by Iran and Kazakhstan is poor and copies of export permits and re-export certificates have not been submitted’ (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). China and Azerbaijan have been sending in permits and certificates to UNEP-WCMC on a fairly regular basis, and the Russian Federation has not exported or re-exported caviar for commercial trade since 2006 due to export quota limitations? (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). Caviar labelling Under Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), range States are required to implement a universal labelling system that involves the application of a non-reusable label on each primary container (ie. tin, jar, or other receptacle that is in direct contact with the caviar) and applies to all caviar, whether wild or aquaculture origin, produced for commercial and non-commercial purposes, for either domestic or international trade. Minimum requirements for the label are that it should include a standard species code, the source code of the specimen, the ISO two-letter code of the country of origin, the year of harvest (or re-packaging), the official registration code of the processing (or re-packaging) plant, and the lot identification number (or CITES export permit or re-export certificate number in the case of (re-)exports). The label or mark used by range States should be such that it cannot be removed from the container undamaged, or be transferred to another container. If the non-reusable label does not seal the primary container, caviar should be packaged in a manner that permits visual evidence of any opening of the container. Parties should accept shipments of caviar only if they are accompanied by labels which meet these requirements. The implementation by range States of the caviar labelling provisions of Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) is outlined in Table 10. * The source of the information in this section is J. Caldwell, UNEP-WCMC, én Jt, 11 June 2008. ’ CITES data show that in 2006 the Russian Federation exported 3 kg of wild-caught caviar from Huso huso, but this was as “personal effects” and therefore not subject to regulation as commercial caviar trade. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP!4) 33 Table 10: Information on caviar labelling in main sturgeon range States New company authonzed to process & export caviar, given processing plant code 0003. Labels are used by this company. 2002/068 Notification about two companies authorized to process and export caviar, given processing plant codes 0002 & 0004. New company authorized to process & export caviar, given processing plant code 0005. Labels are used by this 2003 /005 2003 /056 Printed on adhesive paper, non-reusable. Label is fixed to lateral sides of container and extends to upper and lower surfaces. Any attempt to remove the label or open the container will damage the label. Unique two-letter codes used corresponding to the processing and exporting companies. Shaded printing 1s used to deter counterfeiting. Different colours of labels are used: green for A. schrenckii and yellow for H. dauricus. Y Y 2001 /087 2002/019 2004/003 Labels coloured blue, red & yellow to indicate Beluga (H. huso), Asetra (A. stellatus & pressed caviar) & Sevruga (A. gueldenstaedtit, A. nudiventris & A. persicus) respectively. Made from synthetic, non-reusable material. Attempts to remove the label will damage it. Tins are additionally enclosed in plastic netting, sealed by metal seal matching the label colour which splits if tampered with. Labels designed. Printed on adhesive paper, non-reusable. Attempt to open the container will damage the label. Labels bear company name and logo on the left. Printed on adhesive paper, non-reusable. Attempt to open the container will damage the label. One company authorized to prepare labels by instruction of the MA. Label also bears holographic design to deter counterfeiting. Will begin to use labels for the export of primary and secondary containers containing more than 250g of caviar starting with caviar harvested in 2001. Note: This notification replaced by Notifcation 2003/ 066. Labels are printed on adhesive paper, non-reusable. Attempts to remove label or open container will result in damage to the label. MA attributes lot identification number to each application, once approved. Label also bears holographic design to deter counterfeiting. Labels for caviar from W sturgeon are coloured as follows: Blue for H.. huso and H. dauricus, red for A. stellatus, yellow for A. baerti, A. gueldenstaedtii, A. schrenckii, and A. persicus, green for A. rathenus and H. huso x A. ruthenus. Caviar from aquaculture has green labels. Replaces notification 2001/088 2001/088. 2003 /066 Source: Derived from CITES Notifications to the Parties. Note: Only the sturgeon range States of Iran (IR), the Russian Federation (RU), Kazakhstan (KZ), Azerbaijan (AZ) and China (CN) were considered in this table as the main global exporters of caviar based on export quantities. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP1/4) 34 Based on information submitted to the Secretariat, the main sturgeon range States, Iran, the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and China, appear to have all taken administrative measures with regard to caviar labelling, and have designed non-reusable labels for caviar containers. Some range States report having taken extra security measures, to deter counterfeiting of the labels, such as the Russian Federation including a hologram on the label, and China which uses shaded printing. Labelling methods and security features vary. For example, no security measures are specified for Azerbaijan in the CITES Notifications to the Parties (note that security features are not explicitly required under Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14)). Also, registration codes are not in use for labels from Kazakhstan, since facilities have not been registered (see also Table 9). Additionally, the Russian Federation, Iran, and Kazakhstan are the only main range States which have different sizes of labels or labelling methods for use on different sizes of containers (e.g. containers larger or smaller than 250g, or tins). The Russian Federation and Iran also have colour-coded labels depending on which species of sturgeon the caviar is derived from. However, it is unclear whether the Iranian labels applied to smaller containers (where netting is not used) are applied in such a way as to become damaged only when attempts are made to remove the label, or whether the label will also become damaged if attempts are made to open the container. Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan did not implement the caviar labelling provision until 2003 and 2004. Within the scope of this briefing paper, it was not possible to assess the extent to which the labelling systems described in Table 10 are being implemented in these caviar range States. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 35 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS General trends Sturgeon quantities The reported catch of sturgeon in main range States has decreased since 1998, whereas the quantity of aquaculture production of sturgeon in European inland waters has increased greatly. Generally, these trends in sturgeon production (wild catch and aquaculture) are consistent with the trends in quantities of caviar in trade. Caviar quantities Global legal reported imports of caviar have significantly decreased in quantity from 1998 to 2006. The 27 EU Member States as a group represent the largest global importer of legal caviar, in total tonnes (t) of wild caviar imported from 1998-2006. Over 97% of reported global caviar imports were sourced from the wild. After the EU, the US, Switzerland, and Japan are the next largest importers of wild caviar. Although a decreasing trend in quantity of caviar imported into the EU is evident, the EU has consistently imported about half of all reported global imports of caviar by quantity. Within the EU, Member States that have imported the largest mass of caviar from 1998-2006 are Germany and France, together making up about 75% of all reported EU imports, followed by Spain, and Belgium. Up until 2001, Switzerland was the main re-exporter of wild caviar into the EU. At the global level, the general increasing trend in the import of caviar from aquaculture operations (“C”) has continued since 2002. Reported EU imports of caviar from aquaculture operations have also followed this trend, increasing since 1998. Although reported imports of caviar from aquaculture into the EU have occurred in relatively small quantities, it is notable that caviar from aquaculture operations represented approximately 31% of all reported caviar imports into the EU in 2006. Caviar aquaculture production within the EU may also affect these trends, however if such caviar is not exported outside the EU it does not appear in CITES data. Iran is by far the largest global exporter of wild caviar at 438 t from 1998-2006. The Russian Federation (138 t), Kazakhstan (95 t) and Azerbaijan (35 t) are the next three largest exporters by quantity. The main direct exporters globally of caviar derived from aquaculture operations are France (23 t), Italy (17 t), and the USA (9 t). Switzerland, Germany, the Russian Federation, France and the USA are the top re- exporters of wild caviar from 1998-2006. Some discrepancies appear when import records are compared with (re-)export records. These discrepancies could be a result of misreporting such as importing countries not reporting imports correctly, or could indicate caviar laundering may be occurring in the trade chain, e.g. illegal caviar could be added to the shipments after re-export, leading to an increased mass of the shipment at point of import. Alternatively, the discrepancies could be a result of the fact that Parties report on permits issued, rather than actual trade. Further research is required in order to determine the cause of these discrepancies, if possible. For Iran and the Russian Federation, importers have reported more wild caviar in trade imported from these countries than Iran and the Russian Federation have reported as direct exports. For caviar from aquaculture, the greatest difference between quantities reported in exporter records vs. importer records occurs where France is the re-exporter. Higher quantities of re-exports are reported in re-exporter records compared to importer records, which 1s the opposite of what is shown in the comparison of direct exports. This is especially notable for the Russian Federation, where re-exporter data shows that 74 t of caviar was re-exported, but importer data shows that only 28 t was imported. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 36 Value of the caviar trade In general, the reported import value from extra-EU trade has been higher than the intra-EU trade. The year with the highest reported import value was 2000, at almost EUR59 million. Reported import values have followed a roughly decreasing trend since then, with reported intra~EU import values overtaking extra-EU import values since 2005. While tonnage of reported caviar imports has decreased, the value of EUR/kg of reported caviar imports has increased greatly over these years, from EUR264 in 1999 to EUR1 359 in 2006, which could be a reflection of the increased scarcity of the product since reported global and EU imports have also declined. CITES quotas for caviar When export data from range States is compared against CITES caviar quotas, it appears likely that in some years range States have exceeded their quotas (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). Generally, for most range States except for Azerbaijan, incidences of exceeding quotas have decreased after 2003 (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). This could be a result of the amendment of Resolution Conf. 12.7 in 2002 to require CITES Parties to not accept the import of specimens of Acipenseriformes species from stocks shared between different range States unless export quotas for that year have been established by the range States concerned and have been communicated by the Secretariat to the Parties. Caviar data from the UNEP-\WCMC CITES Trade Database indicates that from 2001-2005, the Russian Federation has not submitted export data to the Secretariat, for any sturgeon species. Additionally, in 2005, Kazakhstan did not submit export data for any sturgeon species. In 2006, Iran also did not submit export data. If a CITES Party does not submit their Annual Report for three consecutive years, the Secretariat can recommend that other Parties do not trade with the non-reporting Party. However, although the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan have submitted Annual Reports, they may not have included sturgeon trade data. This could be partly due to the administrative structure in some countries and the consequent reporting obligations of different administrative bodies (e.g. the CITES Management Authority may be split between different Ministries). Under Resolution Conf, 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), range States are required to provide to the CITES Secretariat or UNEP-WCMC copies of all export permits and re-export certificates within one month of having issued them, for inclusion in the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database, however of the main sturgeon range States considered, Iran and Kazakhstan have not been complying with this requirement (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 37 Exports of caviar by sturgeon species It is notable that the Russian Federation did not submit export data for any sturgeon species after 2001. The Russian Federation had the highest total quantity of reported exports of caviar from A. gueldenstaedtii. Kazakhstan had the highest total reported export quantity of caviar from A. nudiventris, although exports from this species were only reported over a 3-year period from 2000-2002. For A. persicus, Iran was the only range State with reported direct exports of this species, and has exported a total of 202 402 kg from 1998-2005. China had the highest total reported direct exports of A. schrenckii. Iran had the highest reported exports of Acipenser spp. and is the only range State to have traded this product in any significant quantities. Iran also had the highest total reported export quantity of A. ste//atus, followed by the Russian Federation and then Kazakhstan. China had the highest reported total quantity of caviar exports from H. dauricus based on exporter records only, however when importer records are considered, the Russian Federation appears to have exported a higher quantity than China. Finally, for H. uso, Kazakhstan had the highest reported exports of caviar from this species, followed closely by Iran. Further information on the trade in caviar by species is provided in UNEP-WCMC, 2008. Caviar seizures in the EU Quantities of caviar reported to have been seized in the EU were highest in 2000, with total reported seizures at 5 359 kg, and since then reported seizures have generally decreased in quantity, other than an increase in quantities seized in 2003 to 2 054 kg, from 542 kg in 2002. Trends in seizures derived from EU-TWIX data are only indicative of patterns of illegal trade, because Member States differ in their enforcement effort and in their reporting efficiency to EU-TWIX. The three EU Member States which have had the highest quantities seized caviar from 1999-2007 are France (3 302 kg), the Netherlands (3 074 kg), and Poland (1 731 kg). However, the Member States with the highest total number of seizure cases are France (349 cases), Germany (170 cases), and Austria (153 cases). Registration of caviar processing and (re)packaging facilities According to the CITES register of licensed exporters and of processing and repackaging plants for specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish species, consulted on 23 May 2008, some discrepancies in declared trade and types of facilities registered are evident. For example, the Russian Federation has declared 138 t of direct exports from 1998-2006, but has not registered any export facilities, despite this being a requirement under Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14). Despite having no registered exporters, the Russian Federation has applied for and been granted a CITES export quota for caviar in past years and also for 2008. However, this issue requires further investigation as it is possible that it could be a technical problem, where Russian processing facilities are also acting as exporters but the Russian Federation has registered such facilities only as processing and (re-)packaging facilities. If it is the case that the Russian Federation has not implemented the requirement to register and assign official registration codes and submit these to the CITES Secretariat for inclusion in the register, Parties should not be accepting Russian caviar exports. This recommendation is also true for caviar range States that have not been considered in detail in this briefing, where caviar exporting, processing and (re-)packaging facilities are not registered and codes have not been assigned, such as is the case for the US. Kazakhstan and Iran have also not reported official registration codes of their registered facilities in the CITES register and it would be useful to know whether these Parties have issued registration codes and not reported them, or whether they have not issued such codes, as required under Reso/ution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP74). Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 38 Table | 1: Summary of issues with Range State implementation of requirements and year requirement was applied under Resolution Conf. | 2.7 (Rev. CoP! 4) No quota for exports * Source: Data adapted from the UNEP-WCMC Trade Database. ** See UNEP-WCMC, 2008 for more detailed information on permits. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14) 39 Recommendations The following recommendations would be useful in effectively regulating the caviar trade in the EU: ¢ Member States should be particularly vigilant when issuing import permits for caviar in particular by ensuring that export quotas are not being exceeded, that the caviar containers are labelled in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) and by checking the caviar trade database to ensure that export permits and re-export certificates are not being used fraudulently. e Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and the US should be engaged through CITES processes to encourage registration of all caviar exporting and processing/ repackaging facilities, and issuance and reporting of official registration codes for these facilities to the CITES register. In the case of the Russian Federation, this issue requires further investigation to determine whether it is a technical problem, where Russian processing facilities are also acting as exporters but the Russian Federation has registered such facilities only as processing and (re-)packaging facilities. Iran and Kazakhstan should be engaged through CITES processes to encourage the provision of all Caviar export permits and re-export certificates within one month of having issued them, for inclusion in the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). e Trade data analysis indicates that non-CITES Parties within the EU area are involved in the caviar trade. For example, EU Member States report re-exports of caviar to Andorra. However, the role of such countries should be investigated. At the broader level, data on caviar quantities in trade from the CITES Trade Database should be compared with the data available from the FAO Fishstat database, to determine whether this data is consistent, and if not, the reasons for any discrepancies and how this may be related to range State reporting. Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 40 Ip (p1d°D ‘Aey) LZ] Jud uORNjosay $31 1D JO UONEIUBWWA]dUU! 93e3¢ BBUes pUe BpesZ ALIAED 9Y3 JO UOIZNJOAS 3y3 UO BUyaIIg “paysyqnd jou = IN “savahk asouy JO} 9[GuTTeAR JOU svjonb = v/u “SpsOD91 yodun wWiosy uoyey BLP ST pue ‘syaodxa sv JWHEIIIIIS ayy 0} paysodas Jou sem yep wep Uasasdos sores UT samnsty “vad yeyy Joy payodas Jo poysyqnd Gnuenb ysodxa /ejonb ou yey) ayeotpur syuLg “osng osMET pur ‘smpozaze “Ey ‘smaissad “fy ‘skisuaaipnu “Ey ppavjsuapjand ‘Ey Wor} uevow cok o7 aa uaaq sey coks> jo —— Ul Opes], ae — a2271R peas opnyput sannuenb yodx+ Y JOART muy pure tag Wr vas AOZV ‘wag ueidsv) opn pus SSNOE ‘SOJON] Esa =p L OWOM- dN wody peAvop 121 7@/ Sd2MHOS = ini Sc “hae 7 ~ = aa) - OPL 89 099 87 Se ) 0 899 ST = fz eo ( 8¢ oe [oO = a Exe 009 tI Eee lea hal 061 9T 06 £16 €1 | 901 £7§ 8E : : L TaoL nu SHINO OSM] COL ST SHINY S 4asUaqDyy” LEB aa HY IMAG LNAqO LE” ae Ea me aie RERE e/u v/u Upparjsuappans sasuaqiyy a | oti CF SMO AS 4aUATD € OO8¢ fe ae = ea a “oe e a Paes ena on aa eae nu v5 OFTT Oss FI $s | ONE 8Z 008 0€ IEF CE pas eee ae ee ae ee 00tr O10 11 006 07 a rae me) eee Peat el - Pe ZX 116€ HOCE ONZE O18 78 301 Ul SOOT OZOL OS6E OSM] H al OOF £7 ! died Eee Ul £998 99 0001S | 100 OF : nad Tang Ne cen Cael x seal | ree SSLI O9bE dN di wo bal wo = rt oo oan fol NO 1007 9007 y00z 9007-8661 SYLONO LYOdX43 SALID OL GAUYVdINOD SLYOdXA GALYOdsY ALVLS JONVE *! XAINNV ANNEX 2: CITES RESOLUTION CONF. 12.7 (REV. COP 14) Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) 42 Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) Conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish RECALLING Resolution Conf. 10.12 (Rev.), adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its 10th meeting (Harare, 1997) and amended at its 11th meeting (Gigiri, 2000), and Resolution Conf. 11.13, adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its 11th meeting; AWARE that sturgeons and paddlefish of the Order Acipenseriformes represent a valuable renewable biological and economic resource that in recent years has been affected by such negative factors as illegal fishing and illegal trade, regulation of water flow and decrease in natural spawning sites; RECALLING the concepts endorsed and the progress made toward conservation of Acipenseriformes in the Caspian Sea under the ‘Paris Agreement’ approved at the 45th meeting of the Standing Committee (Paris, June 2001); NOTING the need for further research and the importance of scientific monitoring of the status of stocks and an understanding of their genetic structure as the basis for sustainable fisheries management; CONSIDERING that Eurasian range States of Acipenseriformes species are in need of funds and technical assistance in order to develop regional management and monitoring programmes for conservation, habitat protection, and the combating of illegal fishing and trade; RECALLING that Article VI, paragraph 7, of the Convention provides that specimens of species listed in the Appendices may be marked to assist in identifying them; CONSIDERING that the labelling of all caviar in trade would be a fundamental step towards the effective regulation of trade in specimens of sturgeons and paddlefish; NOTING that, in order to assist the Parties in identifying legal caviar in trade, marking should be standardized and that particular specifications for the design of labels are fundamental, should be generally applied and should also take into account marking systems currently in place and anticipated technological advances in marking systems; CONSCIOUS that there is a need for improvement of monitoring of caviar re-exports in relation to the original export and the level of exports in relation to annual export quotas; WELCOMING the establishment of the caviar trade database by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); RECOGNIZING that Parties take into account domestic markets and illegal trade when issuing export permits, re-export certificates or when setting export quotas; RECOGNIZING that the setting of export quotas for sturgeon specimens from shared stocks requires transparency; THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION URGES the range States of species in the Order Acipenseriformes to: a) encourage scientific research and ensure adequate monitoring of the status of stocks’ to promote the sustainability of sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries through appropriate management programmes; b) curtail the illegal fishing of and trade in sturgeon and paddlefish specimens by improving the provisions in and enforcement of existing laws regulating fisheries and export, in close Amended at the 13th and 14th meetings of the Conference of the Parties. 1 The term ‘stock’ is regarded, for the purposes of this Resolution, to be synonymous with ‘population’. Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 1 c) d) e) collaboration with the CITES Secretariat, ICPO-Interpol and the World Customs Organization; explore ways of enhancing the participation of representatives of all agencies responsible for sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries in conservation and sustainable-use programmes for these species; promote regional agreements between range States of sturgeon and paddlefish species aiming at proper management and sustainable utilization of these species; and in the case of range States of sturgeons in the Eurasian region, take into account the recommendations in document CoP12 Doc. 42.1 when developing regional conservation strategies and action plans; RECOMMENDS, with regard to regulating trade in sturgeon products, that: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) J) range States license legal exporters of specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish species and maintain a register of such persons or companies and provide a copy of this register to the Secretariat. The register should be updated when changes occur and communicated to the Secretariat without delay. The Secretariat should distribute this information via a Notification to the Parties and include it in its register on the CITES website; each importing, exporting and re-exporting Party establish, where consistent with national law, a registration system for caviar processing plants, including aquaculture operations, and repackaging plants in its territory and provide to the Secretariat the list of these facilities and their official registration codes. The list should be updated when changes occur and communicated to the Secretariat without delay. The Secretariat should distribute this information via a Notification to the Parties and include it in its register on the CITES website; importing countries be particularly vigilant in controlling all aspects of the trade in specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish species, including the unloading of sturgeon specimens, transit, re-packaging, re-labelling and re-exports; Parties monitor the storage, processing and re-packaging of specimens of sturgeon and paddlefish species in Customs free zones and free ports, and for airline and cruise line catering; Parties ensure that all their relevant agencies cooperate in establishing the necessary administrative, management, scientific and control mechanisms needed to implement the provisions of the Convention with respect to sturgeon and paddlefish species; Parties consider the harmonization of their national legislation related to personal exemptions for caviar, to allow for the personal effects exemption under Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Convention and consider limiting this exemption to no more than 125 grams of caviar per person; all caviar harvested in 2007 from shared stocks subject to agreed export quotas must be exported before the end of 2007. From 2008 onwards, all caviar from shared stocks subject to export quotas should be exported before the end of the quota year (1 March — last day of February) in which it was harvested and processed. For this purpose the export permits for such caviar should be valid until the last day of the quota year at the latest. Parties should not import caviar harvested or processed in the preceding quota year; no re-export of caviar take place more than 18 months after the date of issuance of the relevant original export permit. For that purpose re-export certificates should not be valid beyond that 18-month period; Parties supply to UNEP-WCMC directly or to the Secretariat copies of all export permits and re-export certificates issued to authorize trade in caviar, no longer than one month after they have been issued, for inclusion in the UNEP-WCMC caviar trade database; Parties consult the UNEP-WCMC caviar trade database prior to the issuance of re-export certificates; Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 2 k) m) the Secretariat shall submit a written progress report at each meeting of the Standing Committee on the operation of the UNEP-WCMC caviar trade database; where available, Parties use the full eight-digit Customs code for caviar, instead of the less precise six-digit code which also includes roe from other fish species; and Parties implement the universal labelling system for caviar outlined in Annexes 1 and 2 and importing Parties not accept shipments of caviar unless they comply with these provisions; RECOMMENDS? further, with regard to catch and export quotas, that: a) Parties not accept the import of caviar and meat of Acipenseriformes species from stocks shared between different range States? unless export quotas have been set in accordance with the following procedure: i) range States have established export quotas for caviar and meat of Acipenseriformes species for that quota year, which from 2008 onwards starts on 1 March and ends on the last day of February of the following year; ii) the export quotas referred to in subparagraph i) have been derived from catch quotas that are based on an appropriate regional conservation strategy and monitoring regime for the species concerned and are not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild; iii) the catch and export quotas referred to in subparagraphs i) and ii) should be agreed amongst all States that provide habitat for the same stock of an Acipenseriformes species. However, where a stock is shared by more than two States, and if one of these States refuses to participate or does not participate in the shared-stock quota agreement meeting convened in accordance with the agreed decision of all these States, the total and country-specific quotas for the shared stock may be agreed by the remaining range States. This situation must be substantiated in writing by both sides to the Secretariat for information to the Parties. The State not having participated may only export caviar and meat from its allocated quotas after it has notified the Secretariat that it accepts them and the Secretariat has informed the Parties. If more than one range State refuses to participate or does not participate in the process mentioned above, the total and country specific quotas for the shared stock cannot be established. In case of a stock shared by only two range States, the quotas must be agreed by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, they may call upon a mediator, including the CITES Secretariat, to facilitate the process. They shall have a zero quota until such time as they have reached consensus; iv) range States have provided to the Secretariat by 31 December of the previous year, the export quota referred to in subparagraph i) as well as the scientific data used to establish the catch and export quotas under subparagraphs ii) and iii); v) if the quotas have not been communicated to the Secretariat by the deadline indicated in subparagraph iv) above, the relevant range States have a zero quota until such time as they communicate their quotas in writing to the Secretariat and the Secretariat in turn informs the Parties. The Secretariat should be informed by the range States of any delay and shall in turn inform the Parties; and vi) the Secretariat shall communicate the agreed quotas to the Parties within one month of receipt of the information from the range States; At CoP13 it was agreed that this recommendation would not apply to those range States where there is no commercial caviar harvest or export from shared stocks. It was also agreed, however, that the Secretariat or any Party would bring to the attention of the Standing Committee or Conference of the Parties any significant changes in the harvest or export of sturgeon products from such stocks. Quotas do not have to be established for specimens from endemic stocks, i.e. stocks not shared with other countries, and captive-breeding or aquaculture operations. Quotas communicated for such specimens are voluntary quotas. Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 3 b) the Secretariat make all the information mentioned in subparagraph iv) available to Parties upon request; and c) if a range State of a shared stock of a species of Acipenseriformes decides to reduce its quotas established in accordance with this Resolution under stricter domestic measures, this shall not affect the quotas of the other range States of this stock; DIRECTS the Secretariat to provide at each meeting of the Animals Committee a written report, including references to relevant documents, on its activities related to the conservation of and trade in sturgeons and paddlefish; DIRECTS the Animals Committee, in collaboration with the Secretariat, interested Parties, international organizations and relevant experts, to monitor progress on the relevant provisions of this Resolution and to carry out on a three-year cycle starting in 2008, and using information from preceding years, an evaluation of the assessment and the monitoring methodologies used for stocks of Acipenseriformes species subject to the provisions under RECOMMENDS further, paragraph a), above; URGES range States to cooperate with the Animals Committee and the Secretariat with a view to implementing the provisions under RECOMMENDS further, paragraph a), and the paragraph DIRECTS the Animals Committee above; DIRECTS the Animals Committee to provide to the Standing Committee its recommendations on actions to be taken based upon the above-mentioned monitoring of progress and three-year cycle evaluation, CALLS UPON range States, importing countries and other experts and appropriate organizations, such as the IUCN/SSC Sturgeon Specialist Group, in consultation with the Secretariat and the Animals Committee, to continue to explore the development of a uniform DNA-based identification system for parts and derivatives and aquaculture stocks of Acipenseriformes species to assist in the subsequent identification of the origin of specimens in trade and the development and application of methods for differentiating wild from aquaculture origin caviar in cases where DNA-based methods are not useful; DIRECTS the Secretariat: a) incollaboration with range States and international organizations from both industry and the conservation community, to assist with the development of a strategy including action plans for the conservation of Acipenseriformes; and b) to provide assistance with securing financial resources from Parties, international organizations, United Nations specialized agencies, intergovernmental and = non- governmental organizations and industry; and REPEALS the Resolutions listed hereunder: a) Resolution Conf. 10.12 (Rev.) (Harare, 1997, as amended at Gigiri, 2000) — Conservation of sturgeons; and b) Resolution Conf. 11.13 (Gigiri, 2000) — Universal labelling system for the identification of caviar. Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 4 Annex I CITES guidelines for a universal labelling system a) b) c) d) e) for the trade in and identification of caviar The uniform labelling system applies to all caviar, from wild and aquaculture origin, produced for commercial and non-commercial purposes, for either domestic or international trade, and is based on the application of a non-reusable label on each primary container. The following definitions apply in relation to trade in caviar: — Caviar: processed unfertilized eggs (roe) of Acipenseriformes species. — Lot identification number: a number that corresponds to information related to the Caviar tracking system used by the processing or repackaging plant. — Non-reusable label: any label or mark that cannot be removed undamaged or transferred to another container, which may seal the container. If the non-reusable label does not seal the primary container, caviar should be packaged in a manner that permits visual evidence of any opening of the container. — Pressed caviar: caviar composed of unfertilized eggs (roe) of one or more sturgeon or paddlefish species, remaining after the processing and preparation of higher quality caviar. — Primary container: tin, jar or other receptacle that is in direct contact with the caviar. — Processing plant: facility in the country of origin responsible for the first packaging of Caviar into a primary container. - Repackaging plant: facility responsible for receiving and repackaging caviar into new primary containers. — Secondary container: receptacle into which primary containers are placed. — Source code: letter corresponding to the source of the caviar (e.g. W, C, F), as defined in the relevant CITES Resolutions. Note that, among other situations, for caviar produced from a female born in captivity and where at least one parent originated in the wild, the "F” code should be used. In the country of origin, the non-reusable label should be affixed by the processing plant to any primary container. This label must include, as a minimum: a standard species code as provided in Annex 2; the source code of the caviar; the ISO two-letter code for the country of origin; the year of harvest; the official registration code of the processing plant (e.g. Xxxx); and the lot identification number for the caviar (e.g. yyyy), for instance: HUS/W/RU/2000/xxxx/yyyy When no repackaging takes place, the non-reusable label referred to in Paragraph c) above should be maintained on the primary container and be considered sufficient, including for re- export. A non-reusable label should be affixed by the repackaging plant to any primary container in which caviar is repackaged. This label must include, as a minimum: a standard species code as provided in Annex 2; the source code of the specimen; the ISO two-letter code of the country of origin; the year of repackaging; the official registration code of the repackaging plant, which incorporates the ISO two-letter code of the country of repackaging if different from the country of origin (e.g. IT-wwww); and the lot identification number, or CITES export permit or re-export certificate number (e.g. 2zzz), for instance: PER/W/IR/2001/IT-wwww/zzzz When caviar is exported or re-exported, the exact quantity of caviar must be indicated on any secondary container in addition to the description of the content in accordance with international Customs regulations. Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 5 g) The same information that is on the label affixed to the container must be given on the export permit or re-export certificate, or in an annex attached to the CITES permit or certificate. h) In the event of inconsistencies between information on a label and a permit or certificate, the Management Authority of the importing Party should contact its counterpart in the exporting or re-exporting Party as soon as possible to establish whether this was a genuine error arising from the complexity of information required by these guidelines. If this is the case, every effort should be made to avoid penalizing those involved in such transactions. i) Parties should accept shipments of caviar only if they are accompanied by appropriate documents containing the information referred to in paragraph c), d) or e). i RR ee Annex 2 Codes for identification of Acipenseriformes species, hybrids and mixed species Acipenser baerii BAE Acipenser baerii baicalensis BAI Acipenser brevirostrum BVI Acipenser dabryanus DAB Acipenser fulvescens FUL | Acipenser gueldenstaedtii GUE Acipenser medirostris MED Acipenser mikadoi ewe MIK Acipenser naccarii Acipenser nudiventris NAC OXY Acipenser oxyrhynchus Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi Acipenser persicus PER Acipenser ruthenus RUT Acipenser sinensis SIN Acipenser stellatus STE Acipenser sturio Acipenser transmontanus TRA Huso dauricus DAU Huso huso HUS Polyodon spathula SPA Psephurus gladius GLA FE Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi D Pseudoscaphirhynchus hermanni HER Pseudoscaphirhynchus kaufmanni KAU Scaphirhynchus albus ALB = Scaphirhynchus platorynchus PLA Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 6 a I Cuan ee Mixed species (for ‘pressed’ caviar exclusively) MIX Hybrid specimens: code for the species of the male x code for YYYXXXX the species of the female Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 7 Part II. Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and Tracking of Caviar Permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database A REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre October 2008 (Revised January 2009) LE | a ‘Cy QWIRY UNEP WCMC UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 Email: species@unep-wcmc.org Website: www.unep-wemce.org ABOUT UNEP-WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK, is the specialist biodiversity information and assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), run cooperatively with WCMC 2000, a UK charity. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the many values of biodiversity and put authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the Through the analysis and synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the Centre provides authoritative, centre of decision-making. strategic and timely information for conventions, countries, organisations and countries to use in the development and implementation of their policies and decisions. The UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically rigorous procedures and services. These include ecosystem assessments, support for the implementation of environmental agreements, global and regional biodiversity information, research on threats and impacts, and the development of future scenarios. CITATION UNEP-WCMC (2008). Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and Tracking of Caviar Permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database. A Report to the European Commission. UNEP- WCMC, Cambridge. PREPARED FOR The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium DISCLAIMER The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributory organisations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, the European Commission or contributory organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. © Copyright: 2008, European Commission Table of Contents sevcccesscescccsssscsaesesescensccssscoseccsseseceusnsecessecesasecsneccsnscescacesscecesasencesessesegaeecenseseseeeeseesne see 1 UDB NLC OGS fo sstccetececcsteccecuce- sce sessesescoesnctsstsucc soussesevectecsussensssnossissscvsnesestsruntuerecctsosnnrsoarssescearzeseeeszarentr 2 Il EC Caviar Imports and (Re-)Exports in the Global Context.......-:esssssscseseeeeseetertentententenss 4 TIMPOTt .....sessesecsesseseeseceeseeneseeseescsecnccnssesucnsensccssesscsncssenssssssscesssscsesucnenucnecucancnceancsacecessecsecesseseeseees 4 EC Exports and re-exports.....sceccecsessecseceesteceereesnesnesnesesneesssnssnsensssssvesensenecnnenennseaseaconconcesesstsenens 5 IV Species Amal ysis .......sccscccssessecseesesseesecseesneeseeenesscessesssssscsecssensecsscanccneceuceuseuscesccacesecsssessessegestess 9 1. ACIPenser PerSiCUs .....scesccssersecserrecrecserreceriecnecnenssseneeseeseeneenseneeneeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeUee eee ee Steet se etee eee e888 11 2. — Acipennser Stellatus .......sseccssecssecereeeeecsiecsiessessecssessscesecsssesscenecqncenrecanscacensconscasscseseanensnesnnns 13 3. Acipenser gueldenstaedtii .......sscssesecssessssecseecseecsescsssecsneecnnsccuneccuneenneeniccenccsnensansennssesnsseensets 17 A, HUSO HUSO vescsssssessescsssescssssesessssesecsencssessscncscsavesesesssesecsssenenecesscacsesesssssscenanenssceaeneseneenansaseseneese# 19 5. — Polyodon spathulad.......ccosesccssesecssseccsseccssnecccsnesessncccsnnceccanscesensserenssseseesees seen eeeeee setae sete eee 21 6. Acipenser transMOntanus .....ssseccsreecssreecessecccssesceseseccencccnnseecenstecanetecssessnanascenniseenssesene settee 24 7, USO AAUTICUS ....sesssesesesessssssesescsececesesesesessssssssasesenenssesenenenensacsessecsescscassescaenecancnceecanensceeenesseesess 28 8B. Acipenser NUdiventris...ssssscccecsssecersseeceessseesccnsnsecccenneceecenunenceanscensnsasesean eect enn ete eet 30 9, — Acipenser SCHYENCKIi .....csssssssecssssescssssseseccnnnnseceneneensen tees tees ete eee tn eee eet Te eee 31 10. Aciperser DACTIL .....ssssssssscccesssssiessecsssssssissecscesnsunecescccnenuaneceseccnnaeeeennsenneeseeeeeeeen eee eee eenees 33 11. Acipenser spp. & Acipenseriformes SPpo..ess---cssssssesscccssesssseeeeennnasecennnennnassesennnnnessssennennsss 34 V. Compliance with reporting requirements of Conference Resolution 12.7 (Rev. CoP14).35 VI. Conclusions....s.sesssscsesssesseesessecsecsessessccnscncenecaccneesecucsusenssscescnscescencnscassnscascensesnassncnscencnnsngesensensess 37 Recommendations...c.cs:-sssssssssessessseeseccsesssssssssssenecsussuecarcuscsncssscsnsenecnsceuccnacenscuscascesrcasanenscenccaenacenss 39 TE EERETUCES occ secs. fese ser sesso seve sgssesseeesuezsunccunaneasevane eaqectscecesstcaserayassnsae cect cee eco sis cocci cae 41 JNRER CES sere pce EPP BPE EES ESOC SEPP PET CEO SEEDERS CEES EOREC EELS TE 42 a dee { hi, Ay “ ‘ rf A ze * be » ~ ‘ ws J . i a f q _ ) a, as Lite ie ao ; = 4 lobbied petty ence rh, : d 2 yi polar at a m Wha aa ms -_ ow ¥ : ns 1 i 2 as A a nti nla 1 SrA aia seach 1 | fA A : 7 + aie ee = i wath Ps ea i i ~~ bi igo i Aw Ney Se ie wee eid (a Bb ll 8 ae "hae sm ine ’ Pa. es: . a i a ret ia ae > : - : - na an ' iM aes ; ' i, ay Qi: Su < @ i ar otal ee hoes ah echill NM ng Mind, nal “ Ain s cane ee 2%, 7 Fas» i : oo oe ee oe ayer

7 eae a ee ‘ i Ce -_ cas Hy ¥ _ r ats ot. aa = we ¥ z : ; “a rag! . ee en? = Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database 1. Introduction This report was prepared in two parts; Part I was produced by TRAFFIC (hereafter referenced as Engler and Knapp, 2008) with a focus on global caviar trends and with an EC emphasis on importing and exporting Member States. This report (Part II), was produced by UNEP-WCMC, and takes a species-specific approach to analysing caviar trade trends within the European Community. It includes an initial analysis of data held within the Caviar Database and presents the results of complex data queries which enable related caviar permits to be tracked over time to highlight any incidences of potentially illicit trade. This preliminary report is the first of two that will be produced by UNEP-WCMC under the service contract with the European Commission on the caviar trade within the European Community. At the 10" Conference of Parties to CITES, all Acipenseriformes, or species of sturgeon and paddlefish, were listed in Appendix II of CITES. The listing, which came into force in April 1998, added a further 23 species to the four species already listed in the Appendices. Accordingly, the entire Order is listed in Annex B of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulation!, with the exception of two species, Acipenser brevirostrum and Acipenser sturio, that are listed in Appendix I and Annex A. There is concern about the status of all species of Acipenseriformes, whose eggs are processed into valuable caviar. Wild stocks have substantially declined in recent decades (Pikitch et al., 2005). Contributory factors include the decrease in natural spawning sites, changes in regulation of water flow, pollution, over- exploitation, poaching and illegal trade. Accordingly, the IUCN has classified six species as Critically Endangered, eleven as Endangered, six as Vulnerable, two are considered Near Threatened and six are of lower risk, Least Concern (IUCN, 2007). Provisional status assessments for five European sturgeon species have been elevated to Critically Endangered: Acipenser persicus, A. stellatus, A.gueldenstaedti, A.nudiventris, and Huso huso (Kottelat & Freyhof, 2007). Caviar Database A database of caviar trade was established by UNEP-WCMC in 2007 to monitor the legal origin of caviar in international trade, check export quota compliance, track shipments of caviar across the world and identify any potential illegitimate use of CITES permits. The Caviar Database records the details of permits issued for caviar reported by exporting and re-exporting Parties on a near-real time basis. Resolution Conference 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), specifically relating to the conservation and trade in sturgeon and paddlefish, recommends that all CITES Parties submit copies of caviar permits and certificates no later than one month after they have been issued either directly te UNEP-WCMC or via the CITES Secretariat for inclusion in the database. This enables importing Parties to verify the validity and authenticity of export or re-export permits recently issued prior to issuing a corresponding import permit. It also allows analyses to be conducted in near real-time. This * EC Regulation No. 338/97 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database is in contrast to the CITES Trade Database, which is compiled following the 31st October submission deadline for annual reports by the Parties’. Trade data included within the Caviar Database were reported by exporters and in some case by importers where the (re-) exporter has not submitted details of their exports. Management Authorities of EC Member States may access the online Caviar Database securely by password only via the CITES forum at: http:// www.cites.org/ forum/forum.php The Caviar Database electronically links a permit from the country of origin to subsequent re-export permits, and, if previously re-exported, to the re-export permit from a third Party. Consignments of caviar within trade can thus be tracked from the country of origin via any other exporter to the latest country of import. Quantities can be checked to see whether the amount of caviar re-exported by any country (or collectively by the EC) exceeds the quantity imported, as indicated on the previous (re-)export permit. This may enable fraudulent permits to be detected and may be of particular relevance to the EC, where a re-exporting Member State may not be the same Member State which imported the caviar. Quota excesses by range States can also be detected. The analysis outlines the importance of the EC caviar trade in the global context, and also provides an overview of the trends in caviar trade within the EC by analysing the information submitted by Member States of the European Community (EC), hereafter referred to as Member States, in their annual reports (1998-2006). This analysis includes countries which acceded to the European Community within the ‘EC’ from the year they acceded onwards, but did not include Bulgaria and Romania, which acceded to the EC in 2007. The trade within both the CITES trade and Caviar databases was analysed to determine firstly if range State export quotas had been adhered to, and secondly whether quantities of caviar re-exported by Parties remained lower than the quantities reported imported, by tracking permits. This included trade within the Member States of the European Community, which are large importers and re-exporters of caviar, and are also producer countries. Consideration is also given to the reporting requirements of Conference Resolution 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) and whether EC Member States and other Parties have submitted copies of caviar export and re-export permits within the deadlines specified to either UNEP-WCMC or the CITES Secretariat. Il. Methods An analysis of the volume of imports of caviar from Acipenseriformes (under the term ‘eggs (kg)’ or ‘caviar’) to the EC Member States over the nine year period 1998-2006 was undertaken to identify the key species and the relevant sources within EC trade. For EC * Parties are required to submit annual reports under the provisions of Article VIII, paragraph 7 (a) of the Convention. The Conference of the Parties and Secretariat have recommended that annual reports be submitted by 31 October following the year for which they are due, and following the guidelines for the preparation of such reports. N Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database imports, the analysis selected only trade under the source codes W (wildtaken), C (captive bred), and F (born in captivity). Trade in ranched specimens (source code R) was excluded from the analysis of imports, as only three transactions of ranched caviar were reported by EC Member States during the period 1998-2006. Trade with source codes U (unknown), I (confiscated or seized) and O (Pre-convention) were also excluded from the analysis. For the analysis of EC (re-)exports, source code R (ranched) was included, as trade was reported at notable levels. Species were selected for in-depth analysis if they were imported to the EC at levels totalling 100kg or more over for the period 1998-2006. For each species, export quota compliance was assessed for each range State which had established a quota, for either wild or captive produced caviar (source C or F). Secondly, permits were tracked to ensure quantities of re- exports remained lower or equal to the quantity that was reported imported. Quota Compliance To determine range State quota compliance, exporter and importer reported trade data for caviar of wild and captive sources (C or F) was extracted from the CITES Trade Database for the period 1998-2006. Additional data for 2005 to 2007 were extracted from the Caviar Database to complete the analysis. To minimise double-counting end-of-the-year trade (where exports are reported by importers in the following calendar year), permits were consulted. Import data was included as part of the previous year’s trade when the corresponding export permit was issued in the previous year. Where export quotas had been exceeded, as declared by either the exporting range State or the collective importing Parties, EC importer data was consulted to determine whether any caviar was imported to the EC during that year. EC import data was also corrected to avoid end-of-year discrepancies. Quotas for shared stocks were required following adoption of Conference Resolution 12.7 in 2003. Where a quota was not established but exports were reported by the range State, these data were included. It was also noted where EC importer data exceeded that reported by the exporter. Permit Tracking To identify potential illegitimate uses of CITES permits, data within the Caviar Database from wild and captive sources for the years 2005 to 2007 were analysed to check that quantities of caviar (re)-exported by Parties (including EC Member States) remained lower than the quantities reported imported by tracking individual CITES permits. Trade data for 2008 is also included within the database and permit tracking was also undertaken for 2008 trade so far reported. Quota compliance checks for 2008 are, however, not yet possible as the reporting year is incomplete. All trade data within the Caviar Database are recorded in kg (converted from grammes if necessary) and all permits entered to date have been issued with purpose code T (commercial). The source of caviar imported to the EC for each species selected was analysed for the period 1998-2006. If trade was reported from captive sources Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database : during this period, then permit analysis was also undertaken for those species for source codes C and F. Mixed caviar, which combines eggs from several species of sturgeon or paddlefish, may be reported within trade as Acipenseriformes spp. or Acipenser spp., and whilst the relevant species may be listed individually on the (re-)export permit, relative quantities of each species are not recorded which makes analysis of trade recorded at higher taxon levels difficult. As a result, mixed caviar will not be covered in depth as part of this analysis. Since the adoption of Conference Resolution 12.7, quotas for caviar are published annually if the CITES Secretariat is satisfied that the criteria within the resolution (and its subsequent revisions) have been complied with. Export quotas generally relate to a calendar year (1 January to 31 December); however, from 2008 onwards export quotas for caviar from shared stocks are subject to export quotas with the quota year 1 March - last day of February. III. EC Caviar Imports and (Re-)Exports in the Global Context Imports As declared by importers, the EC imported 46% of caviar (654601 kg) from all sources during 1998-2006 and is clearly a major global market (Figure 1). When exports to the EC and the rest of the world (‘RoW’) as reported by the exporters are compared, the EC represents 33% of the market (Figure 2). There is often a tendency for exporting countries to report greater quantities of species (or their parts and derivatives) as exports than importers report as imports. This is because trade is often reported on the basis of permits issued rather than actual trade. For the caviar trade however, the reverse trend appears to be true. Exporters of caviar consistently reported exporting smaller quantities than importers reported importing during 1998-2006. The discrepancies between importer and exporter trade can, to some degree, be attributed to a lack of reporting by key caviar exporters, which is discussed further in Section V. Overall, trade in caviar to both the EC and the RoW appears to be declining over this nine- year period according to both importers and exporters. Whilst the vast majority of EC caviar imports during 1998-2006 were from a wild source (Engler & Knapp, 2008), there has been a shift in the source of caviar in trade to the EC, with declining volumes of wild caviar imported and proportionally greater volumes of captive produced caviar imported. An analysis of 2006 EC annual reports to CITES indicates that in 2006, 4203 kg (27%) of all caviar imported to the EC comprised captive produced specimens, compared to 9% of imports in 2005 and only 2% in 2004 (UNEP-WCMC, 20083). Reported imports from all countries suggest that this trend is a global phenomenon (Engler & Knapp, 2008). All EC Member > UNEP-WCMC (2008). Analysis of the European Community, Accession and Candidate Countries’ Annual reports to CITES 2006. A Confidential Report to the European Commission. Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database States except Estonia, Ireland and Slovakia reported imports of caviar (from any source) during 1998-2006. The main EC importing nations for both wild and captive produced caviar are, in order of importance, Germany and France (Engler & Knapp, 2008). The species imported to the EC in highest volumes are considered in depth in section IV. BEC = RoW 300000 7] 250000 + 200000 ] 150000 + 100000 | Quantity imported (kg) 50000 = 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 1. Importer-reported imports of caviar by the EC and the rest of the world (RoW), 1998-2006 (all sources, all Acipenseriformes) BEC = RoW 700000 600000 500000 400000 + 300000 200000 5 Quantity imported (kg) 100000 + 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 2. Exporter-reported exports of caviar to the EC and the rest of the world, 1998-2006 (all sources, all Acipenseriformes) EC Exports and re-exports The total volume of caviar exported and re-exported from the EC during 1998-2006 was 239560 kg, roughly a third of the quantity imported. Until the accession of Bulgaria to the Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database European Community in 2007, the EC was not a ‘range State’ for Acipenseriformes, and it did not export wild caviar originating within the EU. Trade from the EC comprised re- exports of wild caviar or direct exports of captive produced or ranched caviar (Figure 3). Overall trade volumes were variable during 1998-2006; but there has been a shift in sources. During 2004-6 the EC (re-)exported decreasing volumes of wild-sourced caviar and increasing volumes of caviar produced in captivity. ®@ Captive (C&F) “Ranched @ Wild 40000 5 30000 + 20000 | 10000 Quantity (Re-)Exported (kg) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 3. EC-Reported Exports and Re-Exports of Wild, Captive (Source C & F) and Ranched caviar, 1998-2006 Wild-taken Re-exports Corresponding to a decrease in imports of wild caviar to the EC over the nine year period, re-exports of wild caviar from the EC diminished substantially after 2004 (Figure 4). Ossetra caviar (derived from A. persicus) was re-exported in the largest volumes (59713 kg). Re- exports of sevruga caviar (from the species A. stellatus) were 56458 kg over this period. Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database § Huso dauricus A. nudiventris 3 A. schrenckii * Acipenser spp. § Polyodon spathula ®@ Huso huso @ A. gueldenstaedtii 3 A. stellatus @ A. persicus Quantity Re-exported (kg) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 4. EC-reported re-exports of wild-sourced caviar originating outside the EC, 1998-2006 Included within the wild caviar re-exported by the EC countries in the figure above is 274 kg of wild-sourced caviar originating from Bulgaria and 3902 kg of wild-sourced caviar from Romania. Captive Production within the EC Caviar produced from aquaculture (source C, F, or R) within the EC for the export market substantially increased between 1998 and 2006, from 280 kg in 1998 to 18100 kg in 2006. France, Italy and Germany, in order of importance, were the main Member States of export. While several species of sturgeon and paddlefish (and hybrids thereof) are bred in aquaculture within the EC, two species in particular are predominantly produced for the caviar export market: Acipenser baerii and Acipenser transmontanus. Direct exports of Acipenser baerii accounted for 64% of EC exports of caviar (excluding re- exports) and have increased markedly since 1998 despite a slight decrease in 2006 (Figure 5). This species was primarily exported by France, the Member State of origin. Acipenser fransmontanus accounted for 34% of EC direct exports, with three other species accounting for the remaining 2% (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii, Acipenser naccarii, and Acipenser hybrids) (Figure 6). While direct trade in Acipenser baerii decreased slightly between 2005 and 2006, the direct exports of Acipenser transmontanus have steadily increased since 2002. These two species combined account for the overall increasing trend in captive-produced direct exports from the EC. Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database Db fo) lo) fo) 4 Quantity Exported (kg) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 5. EC-reported direct exports of Acipenser baerii, Source: C, F, R, 1998-2006 B Acipenser transmontanus ® Acipenser gueldenstaedtii 2 Acipenser hybrid @ Acipenser naccarii Quantity Exported (kg) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 6. EC-reported direct exports of remaining four taxa traded (excluding A. baerii), source C, F, R, 1998-2006. Italy reported exports of 4351 kg of ranched caviar during 1998-2006, predominantly of the species Acipenser transmontanus. Source code R could be appropriate where wild specimens are reared to sexual maturity then eggs are removed from adult females to be processed into caviar. However, there is a need to re-define the word ‘ranching’ within the Convention, as the current definition (Conf. Res 11.16 Rev. CoP14 relating to populations transferred from Appendix I to II) implies this production system is appropriate for only range States, where the ranching programme is beneficial to the conservation of the local population. Italy is not a range States for this species, however, no ranched trade has been reported exported by Italy since 2005. Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database IV. Species Analysis Twelve taxa were imported to the EC at levels above 100 kg from all sources 1998-2006 and were selected for in depth review (Table 1). Species level analysis was undertaken for ten species identified, but Acipenser spp. and Acipenseriformes spp. are discussed together as meaningful analysis at the genus level is difficult. Incidences of any quota excesses for wild caviar are listed for each species, including where trade was reported but no quota was published. These cases are shaded within the tables. Prior to 2003 and the adoption of Conference Resolution 12.7, quotas for shared stocks were not required. Where a quota was not required, but importer data exceeded that reported by the exporter, this data was also included. Permit tracking was undertaken for trade in all species in Table 1 from wild sources and additionally for captive bred (C or F) sources if species had been reported to the EC for those source codes during 1998-2006. Global trade routes for consignments of caviar can be complex; a single shipment can transit through several EC countries before reaching its final destination and after each individual re-export, a check is required to ensure the quantities of caviar re-exported do not exceed the quantity imported. One shipment of Acipenser baerii, for example, was captive produced in France, re-exported by another EC Member State (Germany) to the United Arab Emirates, re-imported to the EC via Luxembourg before being re-exported from the Community for the second time to Iceland. Whilst a tool to detect whether re-export quantities exceed the quantities imported at each level of re-export is being developed by UNEP-WCMC, an automated tool is currently only available for the first level of re-export. For this review, re-exports at subsequent levels were checked visually by eye, but not systematically totalled for the exact figures. Table 1. EC-Reported imports of caviar (kg) for taxa imported at levels above 100 kg from wild and captive-bred sources (source codes W, F and C ), 1998-2006 Relative percentages of EC-reported Quanti' IUCN Red aca ate eS y sources codes (%) listing Taxon ‘WwW’ ‘F’ 1 _Acipenserpersicus 212798.2 e 100 — | 0 | 0 | Endangered* ; Acipenser stellatus 206195.7 99:8 | Oj) 2 [pauidanigered? _Acipenser gueldenstaedtii 24865 SS Os uo 1.9 a Endangered* _Husohuso__ aoe AY 39525.6 ee | 0 | 10 |. Endangered* “Poly lyodon spathula eS Soak 9267.3 fe 99.97 | 0.03 0 : Vulnerable _ Acipenser transmontanus 8516.6 _ 12 | 988 | 0 | Least Concern _ ee 7 lL eusoidauricus| | 6932.5 [| 100 [| 0 [| 0 | Endangered* _ _Acipenser nudiventris er ee rs. | elOO OS eo), _|_Endangered* _ Acipenser schrenckii 3776.9 {| 100 0 | O | Endangered* Aci ipenseriformes spp. Tae can yrggi908 oO | S00ie ” Naren Sai 1004.0 0.3 0.5 99.2 Vulnerable* W= wild F = captive born, C = captive bred in accordance with Article 54 of EC Regulation 865/06 *with annotation by the IUCN that the listing requires updating Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database : Of the species selected, caviar from two species was imported from primarily captive sources, Acipenser transmontanus and A. baerii. For the remaining species, EC imports of caviar were primarily from wildtaken specimens. Global threat status, according to the IUCN, is also listed in Table 1. Where appropriate, individual permits comprising multiple species are compared in Annex A. Export and import data, as well as range State quotas are also presented by country in Annex B. 10 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database 1. Acipenser persicus The EC-reported imports of Acipenser persicus between 1998-2006 were entirely from wild sources (Figure 7). Reported imports in 2005-6 were substantially less than in previous years. @ Acipenser persicus 50000 > 40000 30000 20000 Quantity Imported (kg) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 7. EC-reported imports of Acipenser persicus caviar (kg), all from wild sources, 1998-2006 No instances of quotas being exceeded were recorded in the CITES Trade Database for Acipenser persicus (Table 2). However, while export quotas for Acipenser persicus from range States appear to have been complied with, it should be noted that the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereafter referred to as Iran) did not published a quota in 1998. In that year, importer data far exceeded that reported by the exporter, by a factor of more than three. The main EC importer, of 6127kg, was France. In 2000, Iran published a combined quota of 5200kg for A. persicus and A. gueldenstaedti and whilst the combined quota was not reported exceeded by Iran, the total importer-reported imports for these two species exceeded the quota with 53087kg reported imported. As an example, the EC reported importing a quantity 4612kg more than Iran reported exporting for A. persicus in 2000. Iran has, however, published separate quotas for this species since 2001; for 2008 the quota is 37000kg. Table 2. Incidences of importer data exceeding exporter data for wild Acipenser persicus, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. Exceeded Exceeded Import by by Importer data EC reported QUOTA Export data data exporter importer exceeds direct imports Country Year (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) Exporter data (kg) Iran 1998 N/R 2269.8 8442.9 6173.1 7913.5 Iran 2000 52000* 30886.1 35498.9 4612.8 24518.1 *In 2000, Iran had a combined quota of 52000 for A.persicus and Acipenser gueldenstaedtu. According to exporter reported data, the combined quota for the two species was not exceeded. According to importers however, the combined imports of A. persicus (35498.9kg) and A. gueldenstaedtit (17588.28kg) exceeded the combined export quota by 1087 kg. 11 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database N/R denotes a quota was not required Permit tracking for A.persicus did not reveal any instances of re-exporters exporting greater quantities of caviar than were reported on the relevant import permits. 12 ee of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar atabase 2. Acipenser stellatus All EC reported imports of Acipenser stellatus caviar between 1998 and 2006 were from wild sources (Figure 8), with the exception of 104 kg in 2005 and 334 kg in 2006 imported from captive sources. 50000 5 40000 30000 - “WNuet. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 8. EC-reported imports of Acipenser stellatus caviar (kg), from wild sources, 1998-2006 Quantity Imported (kg) There were five years where either the importer or exporter reported quotas being exceeded for wild A.stellatus during 1998-2006 (Table 3). Romania, now an EC Member State, reported exceeding their quota slightly for Acipenser stellatus from the NW Black Sea and Lower Danube River in 2000, but exports have since remained within quota (Annex B). Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Iran export caviar from shared Caspian Sea stocks of A. stellatus. The EC was a major importer of caviar direct from these ranges States during 1998-2006. Collectively, range States reported exceeding their quotas for A. stellatus over that period by 4809 kg. Iran reported exceeding their quota (by almost 1600 kg) in 1999 and Azerbaijan reported a total quantity of 3193 kg over its published quotas for 2004 and 2005. Kazakhstan, however, did not report exports in 2005 nor have they done so since. Importer data indicates that in 2005 alone, Kazakhstan exceeded their export quota by 3423 kg. As identified by Engler & Knapp (2008), Kazakhstan also exported 203kg of A. stellatus caviar in 2006, yet an export quota had not been established. No EC Member States reported imports of this species from Kazakhstan in 2006 (Table 3.) It is therefore possible, that the true extent of exports beyond the quotas levels set for this species from the three Caspian Sea States over this period was 8417.5 kg. 13 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database Table 3. Incidences of range States exceeding their export quotas (blue highlight) for wild Acipenser stellatus, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. Importer EC data reported Exceeded Exceeded exceeds direct QUOTA _ Export Import by exporter by importer Exporter imports Country Year (kg) data (kg) data (kg) (kg) (kg) data (kg) Iran 1998 N/R 364669 —_41847.7 5380.9 2629.0 Romania 1998 N/R 326.0 327.0 iOnnO ran —-'1999 40000 == 41598,.7 _—-38269.5_ «1598.7 ; 24187.9 Azerbaijan 2000 N/R __305.0 205.0 Romania _ 2000 2100 2117.0 __—'1941.0 Azerbaijan 2004 2700 4849.4. 4549.9 2149.4 1849.9 2953.5 Azerbaijan 2005 2700 —==—3743.7_—=—3323.0__——*1043.7 623.0 2789.4 Kazakhstan 2005 10490 ——-—_—_—139126 3422.6 _13912.6 _ 9316.0 Kazakhstan 2006 N/P 208 203.1 203.1 TOTALS 4808.8 6098.6 N/R denotes a quota was not required; N/P denotes no quota published. Permit tracking revealed a number of incidences where re-export permits apparently exceeded the quantities on the original import permits. Analysis of re-export permits of A. stellatus originating from Kazakhstan in 2005 highlighted a discrepancy with the quantities of caviar reported re-exported from the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’), (Table 4). On permit denoted as “B”, Turkey reported re-exporting 1249.74 kg of A. stellatus to the UAE. The UAE, however, reported re-exporting a total of 1621.29kg originating from the same Turkish re-export permit to six other Parties (Luxembourg, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the United States and Kuwait). The cumulative total of the nine permits issued by the UAE up to 25/9/06 were within the quantity of caviar reported imported. However, it appears that a further ten permits (highlighted in blue) were issued until 12/04/07 for a total amount of 371.55kg beyond the amount of caviar imported on the relevant Turkish permit. The cumulative quantity of caviar imported by Luxembourg alone apparently exceeds the quantity of caviar on the original re-export permit from Turkey to the UAE. Secondly, it appears that Switzerland re-exported a greater quantity of A. stellatus acquired from Azerbaijan on the permit denoted as “A”, than was originally imported from the country (Table 1, Annex A). It is notable that the quantity exceeded (20.38kg) equals exactly the quantity re-exported on permit “F” to Belgium, issued on 20/01/2008. This amount is also identical to the quantity of caviar issued on Swiss permit “C”, to Italy on 12/12/07. Individual permit tracking for other species identified in this review also revealed similar discrepancies for two additional species, Acipenser gueldenstaedtii and Huso huso, on the same original Azerbaijani export permit, “A”. These are presented in Annex A to enable a comparison of importing and exporting Parties (Tables 1-3). It is clear that only one re- export permit caused the irregularity for all three species. This permit (highlighted in blue) was issued by Switzerland on 20/01/98, with destination Belgium. In each case, the 14 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database quantities re-exported are identical to a previous permit “C” issued on 12/12/07, with destination Italy. Detection of such cases could indicate that an attempt has been made to re-export more caviar than was originally imported. The discrepancies highlighted above were brought to the attention of the Management Authorities of the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland. The Swiss Management Authority confirmed that the re-exports from Switzerland to Italy did not take place, and the caviar was alternatively re-exported to Belgium in identical quantities. The Management Authority of the UAE confirmed that one re-export permit for 449k¢ of A. stellatus imported from Turkey on the above permit number had been cancelled, and that the quantity of a second re-export permit had been reduced. Following clarification of these details, the quantities of A. stellatus re-exported were all within the amounts specified on the original import permits. It is therefore important that Management Authorities inform UNEP-WCMC of the details of any caviar permits which are cancelled or returned to them unused, so that the caviar database can be updated and reflect the actual quantities in trade. 15 91 34 SS'ILE Papassxq yunoury 34 67 1Z9T peyodxa-a [e301 6 LC9L 96:0 200Z/#0/Z1 M L fal yremny €€ 0091 aa Z00z/€0/0z ae in uede[ Geel a. z200¢/c0/10 ML “S eiqery Ipnes SPSISL —- 8E-06 Looz/zo/oez aM CULT Y sa}e3g pap rd) a OS LV ih li — a fe) uedef 6 €@ST 8'tZ Z00z/10/€Z ML d —-sayeyg payuy PWEDE See | (00¢/zi/sl =M)2~SCOULS~S~ 2 2000 4 Oo =} a : Bia 0 + T T T - T - T T — 7 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 10. EC-Reported Huso huso caviar from wild and captive (Source ‘C’ and ‘F’) sources, 1998- 2006. In 2001, exporter data show that Kazakhstan exceeded their quota by 2936 kg. This represents the highest quota excess for an individual species in one quota year (also highlighted by Engler & Knapp, 2008). According to importer data, Kazakhstan exceeded their quota by 2482 kg in 2001. The EC did not report imports from Kazakhstan in 2001. In addition, Kazakhstan also reported exceeding its quota in 2005 by 2002 kg. The EC did however, report imports of 4202 kg in 2005, some 1600kg above the published quota level. Kazakhstan also exported 199kg of Huso huso caviar in 2006 yet an export quota had not been established (Engler & Knapp 2008). No EC Member States reported imports of this species from Kazakhstan in 2006 (Table 6). Iran substantially exceeded their quota of 1720kg for H. huso in 2003, notably the EC reported imports of 2048kg for that year. Bulgaria, which has now acceded to the European Union, exceeded their export quota for H. huso from the NW Black Sea and Lower Danube River stock in 2000 and 2002, but has since remained within quota for wild stocks (Annex B). Romania, also now an EC Member State, reported exporting a small quantity of 7 kg over quota in 1999. More significantly, the quota was exceeded (as reported by importers) by 267 kg in 2000 and by 207 kg in 2002, as reported by the exporter. In 2006, Romania adopted a 10 year moratorium on commercial catches of wild sturgeon and there have been no exports of caviar since then. 19 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database Table 6. Incidences of range States exceeding their export quotas (blue highlight) for wild-taken Huso huso, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. Importer EC data reported Exceeded Exceeded _ exceeds direct QUOTA Export Import byexporter by importer Exporter imports Coun Year (k data (kg) data (k (k: kg) data (k Tan (1998 N/R___—2:951.747 _ 3236.28 284.533 3004 Bulgaria loos N/R 2392 1717.2 Romania 1998 = N/R (873 933 20 fran 999) es 0005 | es 530 ens 218. 530 718 «188 2323 ‘Romanial) 2 991999) 750) 757, 1709 Z ae 974.77 Bulgaria 2000, 2500 2747.5 2275.6 247.5 Azerbaijan 2000 _ N/R 145.8 90 Trans :2000/5 2 3000) See eo 2360 454 1598 Romania 2000 3200 3200 3467 267 267 1584.27 Kazakhstan 2001 4200_~—7135.61 6681.84 ee Bulgaria 2002 1720). 2327.8 19711 607.8 251 70 Romania 2002. 2180 oe 2387) 1879 207 1388.65 Azerbaijan 2003 400 561.9 362.05 161.9 91.4 Iran eee 2003 720 ae 2566.269 _2369.388 846.27 649.388 2048.8 — Azerbaijan 2004 250s 291.48 216.28 41.48 143.28 | Azerbaijan 2005 250 372.776 458.976 122.77 208.976 86.2 304.976 Kazakhstan 2005 2600 4602.6 2002.6 4602.6 4202.6 Kazakhstan 2006 = N/P (198.934 198.934 198.934 TOTALS 6161.33 6777.74 N/R denotes a quota was not required; N/P denotes no quota published Individual permit tracking for Huso huso revealed one apparent re-export permit irregularity by Switzerland, as discussed earlier under A. stellatus. 20 ee a of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar atabase 5. Polyodon spathula This species is endemic to the United States of America. Polyodon spathula caviar imported by the EC during 1998-2006 was entirely from wild sources (Figure 11). Whilst EC imports of caviar from wild origin are declining for all other species reviewed, imports of wild caviar derived from this species appear to be increasing. 4000 5 Quantity Imported (kg) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 11: EC-reported imports of wild-sourced Polyodon spathula caviar (kg), 1998-2006 No quotas for wild Polyodon spathula have been published by the United States, but in several years, notably 2005 and 2007, importer data exceeds that reported by the exporter (Table 7). There are no reported exports of this species for 2007, as the United States has not reported on 2007 caviar trade (see Section V, compliance of reporting requirements of Conf. Res. 12.7 (Rev.CoP14). Table 7. Incidences of importer data exceeding exporter data for Polyodon spathula as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. Importer EC Exceeded Exceeded data reported Export Import by by exceeds direct QUOTA data data exporter importer Exporter imports Coun Year k k k k k data k United States 1998 N/R 3,99 50 United States 2000 N/R 3065.95 1193.63 42.86 United States 2002 N/R 2627.53 2639.09 11.56 676.18 United States 2003 N/R 4380.79 _ 4476.6 95.81 1525.77 United States 2004 N/R 4401.38 410814 ie sine “United States 2005 = N/R__4160.34__5017.86 857.52 2387.08 United States 2006 N/R 850183 621545 3574.26 “United States 2007 N/R 7022.94 7022.94 7022.94 N/R denotes a quota was not required - this species is from endemic stock Analysis of re-export permits for this species within the Caviar Database revealed that during 2006-2007, two Member States of the EC collectively re-exported 88.96kg of wild 21 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database caviar in excess of the quantity imported to the EC (via Belgium) on the relevant permit from the United States (Table 8). Spain reported re-exporting 49.09kg to the UAE and Belgium reported re-exporting a total of 414.40 kg back to the country of origin, the United States. The latter represented 39.87kg greater than the amount Belgium reported importing. The Belgian Management Authority subsequently confirmed that one re-export (permit “C”) for 218.6kg of caviar did not take place. The total quantity of caviar collectively re-exported by Member States Belgium and Spain was therefore less than the quantity imported to Belgium. 22 €7 34 96'88 papaaoxg yunoury 84 6FE9p — Pavodxa-ay [e}0.L 6F £9F 49°82 Z0/20/8T M aT H — saqeys pau wuntd[eg Gsrer —s-: COLE o/zo/oo ML SD saeigpauq umisjeg Ger se cloreae, 0/7i/ic M Lt” J saywemug ured qery paruy EL'PSE 69°8P 90/TU/7i oN na a saeisgpauq un jog I AO ae BOOTS MN | wethesy a saeigparun = =—wuini3jag F0'6FC 09'8Ic Wii i. i. DS saeigpauq = uini8jog rE rr0e 90/01/6L M~ ri — g sayeyg pan winis}ag wni3}ag (y wwe) Og ey) $9}e1S pay, © wWoay syz0dxa-ayJ wodxg yeursuQ ES PLE 90/20/07 M L Vv wmnLojoq Saze}S powur) 1X10. 1a}10dxa-ay] sATyepnuny Junouwy anss] Jo ajeq = a01n0g Zioyiodwiy SHOdxa-a1 UO $3}8}S raquiay] Og Aq papaaoxa Aquaredde ‘uni3]ag 0} saje3g payup ayy wWosy payrodxa ATTeurSI10 AerAwd vjnyzvds uopohijog 105 ,,V,, Wwuag ywodxgq +g ayqeL asuqujuq 4v1av> DWIM-dINN a} unypian sjnusad avons fo 8u1youay puv saroads hg avian us aps, DI fo sishjpuy Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database 6. Acipenser transmontanus EC imports of A.transmontanus were predominantly from captive bred sources (Figure 12). A notable increase in reported imports of this species can be seen in 2005 and 2006, compared to no imports during 1998-2000 and moderate imports between 2001 and 2004. aCaptive = Wild 4000 5 3000 + 2000 - 1000 Si@ereeeee be ie i | 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 12. EC-Reported imports Acipenser transmontanus caviar from wild and captive (Source ‘C’ and ‘F’) sources, 1998-2006 1 Quantity Imported (kg) A quota of 3500kg for captive produced caviar of Acipenser transmontanus was published by the United States in 2001. The quota was not exceeded, however importer reported data were greater than exporter reported data (Table 9). Import data was higher in a number of instances, the most significant being in 2007. Export quotas were exceeded in 2002 and 2003 and during these years the United States published a zero quota. No export quotas have subsequently been published by the United States. Table 9. Incidences of range States exceeding their export quotas (blue highlight) for captive roduced Acipenser transmontanus, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. Exceeded Exceeded by Importer EC reported QUOTA Export Import byexporter importer data exceeds direct Country Year (kg) _data(kg) data(kg) __(kg) (kg) __ Exporter data imports (kg) United States 1998 N/R. 1 United States 1999 N/R 23 68 Se United States 2001 3500 418.34 568.86 150.52 560.86 United States 2002 0 582 564 582 564 United States 2003 0 | 227 1209.79 227. «1209.79 982.79 1209.79 United States 2004 N/R 2577 373 yt United States 2005 N/R 2215.57 2993.32 777 2840 United States 2006 N/R 3312 3025 : Bios United States 2007 N/R 285400 2854.11 2854.11 TOTALS 809 1773.79 N/R denotes a quota was not required - imports of caviar for this species were from captive produced sturgeon 24 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database ‘ Analysis of permits for this species within the Caviar Database revealed that France apparently re-exported a greater quantity of source F caviar than was imported on permit denoted as “A” dated 06/06/07 from the United States (Table 10). Details of three re-export permits; all issued in 2008 with destination the United States were submitted by France for inclusion in the Caviar Database. The total quantity of these re-exports exceeds the quantity imported to France by 55.26kg. It was notable that the French department of issue was consistent for all (Paris). The French Management Authority confirmed that permit “C”had been issued, however the actual quantity re-exported from France was 18.6kg, not 190kg. Actual French re-exports of Acipenser transmontanus from U.S permit “A” totalled 233.4kg, and were therefore less than the quantity of 349.5kg imported. For the same species, France also apparently re-exported a greater quantity of caviar than was imported on US permit denoted as “A” in Table 11. However on closer examination of the permits submitted to UNEP-WCMC, the two permits issued for 60kg had identical importer and exporter details. The caviar label was also identical indicating that the later permit (”U”) may have been a re-issue of a previously issued re-export permit (”“Q”). This was confirmed by the French Management Authority. 9 84 97°S¢ pepeeoxg junoury 3> 08'F0F payodxa-ay [P30], Lu te Oe ee q See ane Wie sei 80/90/Z7L A it LS. CoS Fe eebsrams 0061 0061 30/¢0/9%7 Al L 2) —— §a7R}C payuy aouely (vy nua) aouely s9}e1S payuy, =: Wor sytodxa-ay bS'6bE 20/90/90 d ab q aoueLy sa}ejg poywuy, = wodxy yeursuo 12301, (34 sAnepnuny) junoury anss] Jo ajeq adIn0g = asoding # JULIA Grpoduy Zioyodwy rayoduy unoD UIZLIO s}10dxa-o1 uo aoueasy Aq papaaoxe Apyuaredde ‘aoue1y 0) s3}e}g pay ay} Wor payzodxa Ay[eUISII0 AeIARD sNUY]NOMISUBAY AasuadIIY ACJ VY, Wag Wodxy “OL e1qeL aspquyyq Av10V) JINDM-dINN yy uryzia syuusad anions fo Suryovay puv saisadg fig amon u1 apusy, DI Jo sishjuuy ZC 34 ZS'8Z papeesxq yunoury 83> Z7S'8S1. peHvodxa-ay [20 ZS'8S1 0°09 g00z/80/0Z L n SaqeIS payuy, 75°86 TO - gooz/so/at sd ( ee r ooeuoy| b0'PZ €Z'0 g00z/90/60«*O«aE { uedef Igwez sé 3002/90/60 A iT ie PS PSS hoc emen geez ST. 0 g00z/g0/6z A at ae i: et ae Ve eo nh) “g00z/s0/97 “i == = 3T AS See eee pueprey |. Lez ti«C OS (g00z/G0/02aud | ie ad + epeur) PL€L €0 3002/60/61 d dt aq OOvUO|| Wa © ve (9002/70/87m ) Ud nn AT ee a 4 pureyiezyIMs WOLCOTT “900¢/F0/SL_ A SL.) ae oO ae a eerensny, OG) BIWG 8007/40/F0 a i t q = peur aoueay (vy wuned) aouery $9}24S peyup, = Woay s}10dxa-ayy O'0EL 2002/01/01 d L V SURLY SayeIGpayuy, wodxq jeursuO anss] aayeynuny yunoury joaeq S}Odxa-a1 uo aouesy Aq papaaoxa Ajuaredde ‘aouviy 0} $2383g payup ay) wosy paytodxa AT[eUISIIO IeIARD snuvyNOIMSY.y AasuadIIY 10J ,,V,, Wud OdxY “TL e142. aamog = asoding # IULIag asnquyug Avi0v> JINOM-dINN ayy unygin syusad aniava fo Suryovsy pup saivadg hq anand ui apuay, dq fo sishjvuy Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database . 7. Huso dauricus Caviar from Huso dauricus imported to the EC during 1998-2006 was exclusively from wild stocks (Figure 13). The EC was a significant importer in 2000; the export quotas for China and the Russian Federation were 3430kg and 6000kg respectively in that year. 4000 3000 | 2000 + 1000 5 Quantity Imported (kg) 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 13. EC-Reported imports Huso dauricus caviar (kg) from wild sources, 1998-2006 From the shared Amur River stock of Huso dauricus, China and the Russian Federation reported exporting an excess of 929kg caviar beyond their collective quotas during 1998- 2001 (Table 12). Since 2001, where quotas have been published by the range States, exports have remained within quota (Annex B). Table 12. Incidences of range States exceeding their export quotas (blue highlight) for Huso dauricus, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. Importer EC data reported Exceeded Exceeded _ exceeds direct QUOTA Export Import data by exporter by importer Exporter imports Country Year (kg) data (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) data (kg) Chiga sai. BII28 in IN/RL 44813) 2 SCAN ee ee _1100.0 China soy = 1999__.3430) 3546.7 152209) NG e900 Russian Federation _1999 3500 3632.8 = 10928 1328 aS China _ 2001 3430 4110.0 2175.1 680.0 os Chinaawe 2000 N/ Pas 212194) 29a ee 112.5 _ China 2005 N/P 845.4 _ 845.4 8454 ; 845.4 Z Russian ae ee Federation —_2005 N/Po 6480 648.0 648.0 TOTALS 929.5 1493.4 N/R denotes a quota was not required; N/P denotes no quota published 28 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database Permit tracking for H. dauricus did not reveal any instances of re-exporters exporting greater quantities of caviar than were reported on the relevant import permits. 29 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database " 8. Acipenser nudiventris Acipenser nudiventris was imported to the EC entirely from wild sources (Figure 14) between 1998-2006. 3000 + 2500 2000 - 1500 1000 Quantity imported (kg) 500 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 14. EC-reported imports Acipenser nudiventris caviar (kg) from wild sources, 1998-2006 Importer data indicates that Kazakhstan exceeded their export quota in 2001 (Table 13). Kazakhstan's reported exports exceeded their export quota in 2002, the EC did not report any imports of this species in these years. Table 13. Incidences of range States exceeding their export quotas (blue highlight) for Acipenser nudiventris, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. EC Exceeded Exceeded Importer reported by by dataexceeds__ direct QUOTA Export Import exporter importer Exporter imports Country Year (kg) _ data (kg) data (kg) (kg) (kg) data (kg) ranges OS Ni Rae Pee, Uy en a Kazakhstan 2001 2500 24170 ~—«225200 =si(itCi«O 103.0 Tran 2002S N/R 82.7 S21 a WE ee aw Kazakhstan 2002 409 5957 _—299,0:186.7 5. TOTALS 186.7 20.0 N/R denotes a quota was not required Permit tracking for A.nudiventris did not reveal any instances of re-exporters exporting greater quantities of caviar than were reported on the relevant import permits. 30 aa of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar atabase 9. Acipenser schrenckii EC-reported imports of Acipenser schrenckii between 1998-2006 were entirely wildtaken (Figure 15). 3500 5 @ 3000 | Ss Q 2500 4 8 E 2000 - 2 1500 - i Ss | @ 1000 500 4 OFS T T a = | a —a___—__ 1 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 15. EC-Reported imports Acipenser schrenckii caviar (kg) from wild sources, 1998-2006 China and the Russian Federation reported exports of Acipenser schrenckii exceeding their quotas. Between 1998 and 2005 this amounted to 4012kg of caviar from the shared stocks of the Amur River, as reported by exporters (Table 14). The EC reported importing 75% of the published quota from the Russian Federation in 2000. Table 14. Incidences of range States exceeding their export quotas (blue highlight) for Acipenser schrenckii, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007. Importer EC Exceeded data reported Export by Exceeded _ exceeds direct QUOTA data Import exporter by importer Exporter imports Country __Year__(kg) _(kg) __data(kg) _(kg) (kg) datas) China __ 1998 N/R 235 i1¢7ae 2600/6 Rae is 248.9 900.0 Chinas 1999) 2510) 3297-1 711.6 Gee 787 Zz . 709.8 Russian Federation 1999 __1500_2975.6_2163.8 Fay TAZs\@ 77 663-8 Russian Federation _2000 2000 1773-7 24460) ie 446.0 672.3. 1503.0 China 2001. 251026200 11649 110.0 China 2004 N/P. _913:5 913.5 ee 913.5 123.1 Russian Biola rn 20S SN China 2005 N/P 725.9 725.9 Gi ee 69.2 TOTALS 4012.1 2899.2 N/R denotes a quota was not required; N/P denotes no quota published 31 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar-by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database Permit tracking for A.schrenckii did not reveal any instances of re-exporters exporting greater quantities of caviar than were reported on the relevant import permits. Ae of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar atabase 10. Acipenser baerii Imports of A.baerii to the EC have been variable, but virtually all of trade reported in 1998- 2006 was in captive produced caviar (Figure 16). Imports in caviar from this species increased to 374 kg in 2004 following lower levels of trade, but declined again to 158 kg in 2006. This decrease after 2004 corresponds with the increase in exports of captive produced A.baerii caviar from the EC, predominantly by France. @ Captive (C & F) a Wild 500 5 400 4 iS 300 4 mo} L ro} 200 + Qa E = 100 | c oO So 0+ or 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 16. EC-Reported imports of Acipenser baerii caviar from wild and captive (Source ‘C’ and ‘F’) sources, 1998-2006 Permit tracking for A.baerii did not reveal any instances of re-exporters exporting greater quantities of caviar than were reported on the relevant import permits. 33 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database 11. Acipenser spp. & Acipenseriformes spp. The CITES Trade Database was consulted to identify the Parties which traded in caviar at higher taxon names (Acipenser spp. or Acipenseriformes spp.) during 1998-2006. Four exporters were identified: the Russian Federation and Iran traded in both Acipenser spp. and Acipenseriformes spp. and Kazakhstan and the United States, which both traded only in Acipenser spp. Table 15. EC-reported imports of caviar at higher taxon levels, 1998-2006 (kg) EES Taxon Imp. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Acipenser spp. 5232 300 2 852 820 100 100 200 Acipenseriformes spp. 1 5 351 320 It is not possible to determine the basis for reporting at higher taxon levels from CITES trade data. Individual species may simply not be reported by Parties. Alternatively, the caviar may be derived from a hybrid animal, or is “mixed”, combining caviar from two or more sturgeon species. There are no data available within the Caviar Database for Acipenser spp. or Acipenseriformes from the exporters, primarily because these countries have not reported any recent caviar trade. It was therefore not possible to track individual permits for caviar traded at higher taxon levels. Sony of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar atabase V. Compliance with reporting requirements of Conference Resolution 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) Range States have been required to submit copies of all export permits and re-export permits to the CITES Secretariat or UNEP-WCMC within a month of issue, in accordance with Conf. Res 12.7 (Rev.CoP14), since 2000. In general, the level of compliance for this reporting requirement of the Resolution is good. All EC Member States have apparently been compliant (Table 16). Since accession to the European Community on 01/01/07, Romania has not reported any exports of caviar. Table 16. Compliance with the reporting requirements for caviar by EC Member States that reported trade EC Compliance Producer (P) or ' 2 ; Member R ae Reporting practise with Res. Conf State eexporter(R) 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) Belgium R Submits copies of re-export permits on a regular basis. Y Bulgaria P Submits copies of export permits regularly. Y Denmark R Submits copies of re-export permits on a regular basis. France PandR Several regional departments submit permits directly to UNEP-WCMC. Copies of all permits issued for caviar are submitted to UNEP-WCMC ona monthly basis. Germany PandR Submits copies of export and re-export permits on a Y monthly basis. Italy P Submits copies of export permits on a regular basis. Y Luxembourg R Permits were submitted to UNEP-WCMC for 2006. No Y information has been received subsequently, however Luxembourg is a major importer and distributor of caviar within the EU. Poland R Submits copies of re-export permits on a regular basis. Y Spain PandR Submits copies of export and re-export permits on a Y regular basis. United R Copies of re-export permits submitted to UNEP- Y Kingdom WCMC. Of the main exporting range States, Iran and Kazakhstan and have not complied with the reporting requirements (Table 17). The Russian Federation has not submitted any permit details since 2005, and re-export data suggests that no caviar has been exported from the Russian Federation since 2005. China and Azerbaijan, the other key exporters of wild caviar 35 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar. by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database have submitted copies of permits to UNEP-WCMC on a fairly regular basis. The United States reports exports only irregularly and upon request; Uruguay does not report their exports of captive produced caviar. Table 17. Compliance with the reporting requirements for caviar by other key exporting Parties Producer (P) Compliance A F ith Res. Country or Reporting practise wit ; Re-exporter Conf 12.7 (R) (Rev. CoP14) Azerbaijan P Permit details generally emailed to UNEP-WCMC Y within a few days of issue Gina P Submits export permits to UNEP-WCMC ona Y regular basis Hong Kong, R Copies of re-export permits were submitted to the N Special CITES Secretariat on a quarterly basis throughout Administrative 2007 and forwarded to UNEP-WCMC. For 2008, Region z reports have been approximately six monthly. ‘Islamic P Does not submit permits to UNEP-WCMC. An e- N Republic of Iran mail received by the CITES Secretariat indicated that export permits were attached, but the attachments appeared to be html files with no content. ‘Kazakhstan 12 Does not submit permits to UNEP-WCMC despite N the Secretariat meeting with a Kazakhstani official in 2007. Russian P Has not submitted permits to UNEP-WCMC since Y Federation 2005. Re-export data suggests no caviar has been exported from the Russian Federation since that time. ‘Switzerland R Since April 2008 permits have been copied to the Y CITES Secretariat on a monthly basis. All permits issued for re-export of caviar since 2006 have been pi hs provided. Turkey R No permits have been submitted to either the ? CITES Secretariat or UNEP-WCMC. Turkey re- exported caviar up to early 2006, but there is no indication that this trade has continued United Arab R Submits copies of re-export permits on a regular Y Emirates basis United States IP The United States has provided copies of specific N export permits at the request of UNEP-WCMC, however there is no mechanism in place for regular transmission of permits Uruguay us Ie Does not submit permits to UNEP-WCMC ; N 36 aye of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar atabase VI. Conclusions Member States of the European Community are significant importers of caviar; one third to a half of the global market share during 1998-2006 was imported to the EC. Caviar imported in the highest volumes to the EC over this period was derived from the species Acipenser persicus, A. stellatus and A. gueldenstaedtii. Overall, the majority of imports to the EC during 1998-2006 were of wild sourced specimens (Engler & Knapp, 2008), yet imports of wild caviar over the same period decreased for all species except Polyodon spathula. In contrast, EC imports of captive produced caviar during 1998-2006 showed an increasing trend; imports were predominantly comprised the species A. transmontanus and A. baerii. Export levels from the EC were variable, but 64% of exports during 1998-2006 were captive bred Acipenser baerii primarily originating in France, with captive bred Acipenser transmontanus accounting for 34% of the remainder. Several range States exporting wild caviar demonstrated a lack of quota compliance during the period under review. Substantial quantities of caviar were traded over the quota levels, as reported by either the exporting range States or the importing Parties, or both. These were most significant for Caspian Sea sturgeon species, Huso huso, Acipenser stellatus and A. gueldenstaedtii, and for Amur River A. schrenckii, all of which are currently categorized by the IUCN as Endangered. The EC imported a large proportion of the trade in years where quotas for these species were exceeded. In two instances, the EC Member States collectively imported the entire published quota, as well as additional quantities. These were Huso huso from Iran in 2003, and Acipenser gueldenstaedtii from Azerbaijan in 2005. The difficulty for an importing party is that they are not able to determine if a range State is effectively managing its quota for the current quota year. This highlights the requirement for a near-real time analysis tool for the caviar trade to act as an early warning system to help prevent such incidences from occurring. The Caviar Database was established in 2007 and allows, for the first time, detailed analysis of the caviar trade to be undertaken. Analysis of trade within the Caviar Database indicates that for 2007, no published export quotas for wild caviar were exceeded, demonstrating increased quota compliance by the range States. However, it is important to note that several exporting Parties, notably Iran and Kazakhstan do not report on caviar exports to either UNEP-WCMC or the CITES Secretariat. Tracking of CITES permits to identify possible illicit trade in caviar was undertaken as part of this analysis. The volume of trade reported within the Caviar Database for the years 2005- 8 and the fact that trade routes for caviar can be convoluted and unpredictable makes analysis particularly complicated. For example, one caviar consignment originating in the EC was exported to the Middle East, re-imported to another EC Party and again re-exported from the EC. Furthermore, it was not possible to determine if all re-exports of caviar were at levels lower than the quantities originally imported to that country (or collectively by the EU) if details of the original permit were not included within the database. This could be due to the exporting Party providing no details of the permits or the original export taking place prior to 2004. 37 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database : Permit tracking highlighted several apparent occurrences of potential illegitimate use of CITES permits for wild and captive produced caviar. Whilst it was not possible to track all permits within the Caviar Database, this report identified eight discrepancies by focusing only on key species traded to the EC, during the years 2005-2008. All were subsequently clarified by the Management Authorities of EC Member States and other exporting Parties. The quantity of wild A. stellatus, for example, reported re-exported by the United Arab Emirates exceeded the quantity of caviar imported according to the permit data available. Luxembourg alone appeared to have imported a greater quantity of caviar from the UAE than was originally re-exported to the UAE. Subsequently the Management Authority of the UAE clarified that this discrepancy had occurred as a result of the inclusion of a cancelled permit within the Caviar database. It must be recognised that the Caviar Database records permits issued, and not necessarily permits used. It is therefore entirely possible that details of cancelled or unused caviar permits are held within the database. Should UNEP-WCMC or the CITES Secretariat not be notified of the cancellation of permits, the Caviar Database will overestimate the trade accordingly. Similarly, if replacement permits are subsequently issued by the exporter and also included within the Caviar Database, an even greater over- estimation of the re-export trade will result. The Caviar Database also indicated that Switzerland re-exported greater quantities of A. stellatus, A.gueldenstadtii and Huso huso in 2007-2008 than was originally imported from Azerbaijan including to EC Member States. Again, this was explained by issued permits not being used. Additional discrepancies in re-exports were apparent for wild Polyodon spathula originating in the United States and re-exported from two Member States, Belgium and Spain. One cancelled permit explained this discrepancy. Finally, France apparently re- exported a greater quantity of captive produced Acipenser transmontanus originating from the United States than was imported. Whilst none of the permits were cancelled or unused, the quantity of caviar re-exported was reduced on one permit. Total re-exports were therefore at a level below the quantities imported. In addition to the difficulties in obtaining follow-up information on whether a permit issued was cancelled or unused, lack of permit information from key range states also constrained the analysis. Non-compliance of reporting requirements of Conf. Res. 12.7(Rev. CoP14) by key exporting range States such as Iran and Kazakhstan despite regular reminders published by the CITES Secretariat (through notifications 2007/30 and 2008/037) undermines the overall effectiveness of the Caviar Database. Until such time that all exporting Parties report on caviar trade there will be significant gaps within the data, and accordingly any analysis will be incomplete. However, Member States of the EC have been compliant with the reporting requirements of Conf. Res. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14). Despite increased quota compliance by range States, there remains a need for a tool to track valid caviar permits within global trade in near real-time for both wild and captive produced caviar. It has been demonstrated that the Caviar Database is an effective tool to highlight permit discrepancies. There is a requirement to complete further analysis of all caviar trade data, for all species and all sources held within the Caviar Database, and for 38 Bee of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar atabase continual monitoring of permits within trade. For a complete analysis, historic data from 2005 onwards will be added to the Caviar Database so that where possible, all re-exports can be traced to previous permits. UNEP-WCMC is currently further developing the online Caviar Database to enable more effective monitoring and tracking of caviar within trade by CITES Management Authorities. The database will be searchable by species, country of origin, year of (re-)export or permit number. The cumulative quantities of caviar reported (re)-exported from the chosen selection will be displayed, allowing the importing MA to check that quotas have not been exceeded, or quantities re-exported are not greater than those imported. It is clear that there is some trade, as reported by both exporters and importers, in caviar at higher taxon levels. Permits which simply record caviar at higher taxon levels and do not specify the species concerned should be rejected, in accordance with Conference Resolution 12.3 (Rev. CoP14). Where UNEP-WCMC or the CITES Secretariat are provided with copies of permits for caviar from hybrid sturgeon that specify the exact species concerned, the specific hybrids can be included within the Caviar Database. If Parties include hybrids in their annual reports, data will also be entered into the Trade Database as such. It is apparent that trade in mixed caviar requires further discussion to determine the most appropriate way of reporting this trade. Currently, the relative quantities of species are not recorded on permits of mixed caviar. Recommendations 1. UNEP-WCMC or the CITES Secretariat are informed of the details of caviar permits which are cancelled or returned unused to Management Authorities, so that the Caviar Database can be amended accordingly. 2. Where it is apparent that the actual trade level was less than the quantity issued on the permit, UNEP-WCMC or the CITES Secretariat are provided with the customs stamped copy of the permit so that the Caviar Database can be amended to reflect actual trade levels. 3. Member States issuing semi-complete permits for caviar should submit the details of the completed permits, including country of destination and quantity in kg, to UNEP-WCMC or the CITES Secretariat once they are returned to the Management Authority, for inclusion within the Caviar Database. 4. Member States do not accept or issue permits for caviar at higher taxon levels (e.g. Acipenser spp. or Acipenseriformes spp) where permits do not specify the species concerned. Annual reports should report on trade in hybrids for inclusion in the Trade Database, rather than at higher taxon levels. However, the issue of reporting 39 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar. by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database trade in mixed caviar would benefit from further discussion at a Management Committee meeting. 5. The Commission liaise with the Secretariat regarding range State non-compliance with the reporting requirements of Conf. Res. 12.7 (Rev.CoP14). 40 Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar Database References IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. . Downloaded on 03 October 2008. Kottelat, M. & Freyhof, J. 2007. Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes. The World Conservation Union (IUCN). Switzerland. Pikitch, E.K., Doukakis, P., Lauck, L., Chakrabarty, P., & Erickson, D.L. 2005. Status, trends and management of sturgeon and paddlefish fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 6, 233-265. 41 351 8€07 3¥ LE°SEL pepaesxq Junoury peyodxa-a1 [230 cy LE GEL S07 30/10/0c M L d wnisjeg 6ESEL -6r0C ee LO Cc Se 7 | 2. wanRTeE Gi6) a. eCOG Lo/ceran | AN L d Aueuria5 eae = ae NE SS ey 6c FS. 60 FS Nia it a soul] 3. AQeINUND JUNOUTY onss] jo 93eq Z0/71/s0 M 33In0g asoding # WuLted (v quad) uefreqiezy PUue]I9Z}IMS pueyisz}IMs wor sytodxa-ay] podxg jeursi9 pueyiaZz}IMs uelieqiazV BOOK: syiodxa -a1 U0 puryssz}iIMg Aq papaaoxa Ajuaredde ‘pur]19z}IMg 0} uelreqiazy wor payodxa Ay[eursi10 TerAed sn}H]13}S sasuadiay 103 (y) Wuuseg yodxq “T e1qRL y xouuy asnquynq 4100 DNOM-dINN a4} unin spiuuad aviavs fo Suryavay puv satsadg fig amavD ut apes] DI fo sishjuuy cP 83> 67°02 Pepeaoxq yunoury 34 18°90F peyodxa-ai [230], i SESE TT1,(7-\77- USES 8S'0F 80/10/02 winisjag 18°90F M i, d ez99e —- 88°09 20/20 Co Fi ees — nisjag GeGos «PECL. Z0/zt/7l M 0 d Auewiiasy IO€8E 8S°0F Ai wT [c,h eer er €P@PL SZ IzL—Ssi“‘ JWOM-dINN ayy unin sputisad aniavo fo Suryovay pun saivadg fig aviavD ut apuay, DJ Jo sishjuuy 34 8¢'€ Papaasxq Junoury 34 9£'9 peyodxa-ar [e}0], 80/10/02 M L d wmnIsjog i ~ yo/zt/z-L mM ee Sy re : Ajey] pueyiazyimg = (vy) ueliequazy purpiazyims Bee Zo/z1/z7L = M L woy s}10dxa-ay see puryisz}IMs uelreqieazy yodxgq yeur3z1u9G Z0/Z1/¢0 M L Vv Teyodury uNOD UISIIO gPyodwuy zlayloduy aomog asodimg # WULIEg 1 anss] JO a3eq aayenun> yunoury B ‘puL]IZIIMS 0} uelIeqiazy WIOIJ payodxa AT[eUISIIO AMIALD OSNY OSNTT 10J ,V,, Wag yOdxy ‘¢ aTquyL, SHOdX9-91 UO PUP]IIZJIMG Aq papaadxa Puere: asnqujog 4v100) DWOM-dINN Hy} wyyim squusad aviava fo Suryousy pun saisadg hg aviavd ui apvay, DI fo sishjouy cP 00€ 00€ Z00Z =e d/N 9002 926'8SF OLL7LE 0Sz "cz 87917 SP 16z er : F007 0'z9E 6 19S 00 €00Z (C01 Caen CE. CCC oes 2007 “LFL SOFT 0z¢ 100z Ws. S°CFL 000z osmiy osnpy 86668 000€ 3007 = (aT 000€ ar coc a pa d/N 900 remy tees PCL EFZE ~ 00ZZ - eancoocae Z66rSh Tr 6P8F 00Zz 7007 “6TIELZ “PeOIse 00S je, Cilia -GE9ZOL G€SZ7L OLFZ Z00Z Ligie = ~ TZLI8 - OF8Z 00 snyujajs 4asuadioy qi - oe a ee O00 6F PZIL 09€€ 3007 L6C8Z Ae 09€€ Z00Z * ‘d/N 9002 “S9ZGeg 9¢'ZELG 08Ze E ERA -8L9L0S - 80'E8ZP — 08Ze _ —— F007 P0°€697 PS P69E _ Shr ee coe 1¢'99¢1 IS'SP8L OLLZ Z00Z ~L¥0Z 7 LPOZ se SS hie SOE £609 Sooo iypavjsuapjan8 sasuadioy y) eyep Wodury uviteqiazy ‘apesy rea Jo pua 10J payaI109 sem eye ‘papaadxa 319M sejonb ayeoipur svare payySrpYySty ‘L002-866T ‘(@peay [enyoe you) panssy s}rutzag uo paseq uLs1IQ Jo AQunoD Aq reIAeD PIM 10J aduerduso0D vyond ig xouUuy asuququd 4v1Qv> DWOM-dINN aff unyyiar syruaad auiavo fo Suryovay puv sarsads fig amiavD m1 apvsy D7 Jo sishjuuy ov €99'999 £€99'999 000T 9002 2 WTS a a= dae Oo g00Z €83'F66 ~ 6€ 8001 O7ZT 7002 Steg F< i pean Lp REOU E 2. qaae OC Ley tel eee COC 1461 8'ZZET Oct eC 86 Pi eGiebe ‘ee 0c ee <= O “RE or 5 SOTEG Vice oa ee S707 0h ee 6661 ~~ CLILL . bE ; a — .. ee = ; 866L osnlf os nH STL 00072 Ssnualfjns dasua lV a ce a = = an ana ae a hos e.. = a oo te = : d/N 1002 ee ee _ ~¢L = oz €00Z = - a Cae “hie ae Z00Z a. See ee = = 0s 100z i ren Sticz 5 5 : 0002 1jpavjsuapjan8 sasuadiay (34) ep Hoduy (34) eyep Hodxq OT elies[ng aspquywg 4v10v> JINIM-dANN ay} unin spuaad avtavo fo Suryovay puv saivads fg aviovd ul aposy, a7 fo sishjuuy G6SL ZZ91 ; ae d/o Gaaci Suse | a ae __ SGe6IZL gceolcl d/N OU L8L Si a ee ae SS a ee ae SS eraziz OLLF } > EES SLI 4 vere lec7sh noi oo. - ii ZTPSE LOT ISP ZeeL 8002 Zeel 2002 ae iF ; d/N 9002 206'S2L Z06'S7L d/N er ee uc SS OSe16 ee d/N 0c engtCinss,. a oul? OCDE, eee eo : €002 80°9SZ1 80°9S/L OLS 007 ZePoll =e oo DE 100z TR OOCE © S Cat eee ee Osz ics oS 6S1TIL (sae ee era Geel : ne 989° 1SET ings Sao (34) eyep Hodury (34) eyep odxg LY snounvp osnyy nyoUadyas Aasuadiy LLL / ooo euly) asuquyuq AvIOvD JWOM-dANN aif} unypim spusad aviavo fo Suryovsy puv saivads fig aviavD U1 apusy, DJ fo sishjuuy a aes cat “0001 aie 18S 6661 969262 i 8661 (aniano passaad) ‘dds avpiasuadiay GP Sz8E : 0008€ 2002 EI ee ee UL eS ee 99° Z2LTL FIS'F99 Es gee 0001S c= en Oe SS: eee 2 a ee 1 nee 0 865 9LFLE Lsl06e __ 000¢9 ec ISe'CLOPE OTOL a SO ee ee agterce st CL9880€ Q00ZS.- | se rOOUZET ; 80 0Z6rE 6€ 08EPF o00es a eC es 6 Chr8 €8°697Z 866 snoisaad sasuadioy €£78 €L'78 veWs SGI a ae Se Ss =s Se er ee eee a sujuaoipnu sasuadioy 90L'8ze ¥. 129'8S 3 1 ns ~ $00z WSLS SS cece es a he 27a ee —€8P'SL91 ee ICE a. ae r ne gecesc—i(twtst*é‘C;C*‘*d 001 ae Sen oe ee ee wae a ee tee ee th a ae iypavjsuapjans sasuadiy “807 F680S ~ 6S°S00FS 4) Bep Hoduly ) eyep Hodxq 4) VLONO uel] asnquywg Av1av> JINIM-dINN ayy unjpin spuad aviavo fo 8uryousy puv sarsadg fig aviavD ui apvsy, dq Jo sishuuy 69 *BYZ80€S JO [e}0) payiodaz ev yAIM siaj10duuT 0} SuTprod9e papaaoxa sem sIy], “3 QOOTS SEM pauIquIoD snoisuad ‘y pue Uypavjsuapjans “y 10J eyOnb JezO J xy ‘pepnpur uaaq aary uesy Aq JWOM-daNN oO} paynuqns syuuiad ayqeyrear yng 4z0day fenuuy ¢00z 9y} UT s}10dxa rere y40daz jou prp uJ], SS SSS a 7 8007 : 000T TCCOl Gane ee ee wm — fie = ae — d/N : 9007 ji) iia. — OL oo =i | 666 7 ~~ eh — G90L F007 88 69EC 697'99GZ Cet Se 997 0FSZ LV LP9T 0567 2007 ice eee Sr 50c eee 0568 ; ~ 1007 (09 3 sda a 000€ : 000 tt SIZE SURGES teen Os Se.) “ScoEce EE [ii laa osny Osnpy 00zE 3002 609Z6 ; =" i ee 10 AV a ——s NEON 672 €6E1 ~ 620'28 00€9 ¢00z GLELIP ‘ G'eS6L ; 0Z0Z F007 929 PETL C€ELL OOZLL €00Z Z6CSP6 ; , 129°7896 ; LE8FL 7002 €6 98F1Z i €PSIZ ~ OOFEZ : “1007 “GL8'801FZ ae - ”—~C~C*CSRS : —— 0007 ; “Gpesese—t—“(‘(‘‘(O(‘(;;<((;*#;CNMONGTD ~ 00007 r S666 SIL LSP : G3'99F9E ; - - 8661 ; snyuqjays dasuadioy 4) eyep Hodwy UPI] osnl OSHET snqupjays dasuadioy suquaaipnu sasuadioy aoa ee 92097 0092 g00z 60% = 760°€69 09€Z 007 ILZSP P80L 8Z Less €007 7S'€6E7 LT ELPE 9966 2007 781899 P19 SELL 00zF 1002 EROCG A COL ROL ote —— He aa : : NE +L£901 3007 18Z ZOEL »LE901 Z00Z I GZ 60% = SPN: oS ae et 19G'TIL6EL 06F01 g00z GS €LT LSLL POC F007 y OISE 7Z€89 ~ -CLEET9Z aii €099 97 9ZIIL OZLOL Z00Z 366 Z0061 96F'80Z81 00602 1002 : GI@ PISEL €TS6LOL === = = ae 662 1Z'66S 60 7002 hago Se eee ——— eo Sao rat SET 7 sOLZE 300Z leas Veta oes ae OS CUES SSS H/ZE a me OO / Nes 900 GOT LI6€ aC eet aa C ee a A ca a a oe €0'EZ8T -£0ZE a 700z = Z8€ x ay Al r= Te0cor EO : Sone ace seat Se Ve 108°ZE8e : Te ogiscsc SS Sccuiseze a = an ca Aes ae ae: 4) ep Hoduly I) Bep Hodxq iypavjsuapjans aasuadioy ueysyyezey aspquywg Av1av>) JINIM-dINN ayy unypion sputtsad avtavo fo Suryoway puv saisads fig amavy ui apo, ag fo sishjuuy IS ‘osny OSnFY 104 BY[9 ‘snywq]a}s sasuadiay toy BYZETZ ‘Mpavjspjan8 zasuadioy 104 ByQ0z (Axed Sy p[D-uoU) uLystusUyZIN |, 10J sejonb sapnypouy, rr + LOZL 8002 LPS'6r6 + LOZL L00¢ asuqujyq 4v1avD) DNOM-dINN aff unypiar spiusad amavo fo Suryovay puv saisads fig aviv ui apvsy, DJ Jo sishjpuy cS GIs SeOL 0007 go0z 67S1 OL ee 54s = ae o0ca ZELL == GO LCeee © eee ae ee fi €00Z 6281 186% fe RUST Sa 6002 rT ieee Msc ees ON a Z9¥E 00ze ~ 00zE 75... ee OO0C ee "SEGAL ein ae Ske Maes ZSL1 a 0) eae? eeoG a . vs aed cs y ‘ a: ; = 7 ~~ 866L on osnl osny eee — = ae ear pe Reean ee 8661 snynjjays aasuadioy Z Z 091 G00z me Soe ais Sis eeonhas om. = | Se 7002 gcl ZS@ == Mee Oo eee, C= SEE COO? OLE 7 a, ee, ne 00zr Te Z007 98 602 c= Cee ee 100z LEI es $F aos 00st : 000Z 801 €TIL "F106 aioe ae ce OOO = —=——— —— Sere seas (34) eyep Hoduly (34) eyep yodxg (34) VLONO PIUPUIOY asnquynq Avlav JWOM-dJNN af} unygin spmuad aviavo fo Suryav.y puw saivadg fig sw1ava ui apvay, 97 Jo sishouy (34) eyep jroduiy 1S6'P691 0878 700% GSe009T OOSEL a €00Z REACT ATG ee J a: | Rene. 7002 - @S7SEr aoa 00SZz 100Z ZL90196 : StS6lF6 — QSE6E ; : = Tras 19¢°S80Z1 TPL POGEL o00ze : 6661 Akad oe LOS'08S0Z ~ 000s8 eti~Dia 8661 snypjjays sasuadioy ose 3002 Si. ee = 2006I" >. a ee cee 0c a es > Fay NE a aoc AS 6ieahe - a S aes ; i... €00Z Ose : OE a Z00Z a OFIZ oe L00Z a LELLL ; Wk. =e 000z “BCOlo Te os Ge ; 9°GL6z ~— Q0ST _ > ag ee CCC TiGICI nn nnn y JINDM-d INN aig unypin spmaad aviavo fo 8uryovsy puv sarsads fig smiovD ui apos], Dg Jo sishjvuy she) (34) rep poduy 802 9002 Sere Se erie ; go0z eircc cya PSP Sh 007 pees ¥ 02 aie snyouhaojnjd snyouhyarydvas 6 720L L002 Pierce €8' 1658 9002 98 Z10G : PE OIE ss 002 ei 8 LOPE F002 9 OLbP 7 2 6Z 08€F . €00Z —— 60'6E9Z €5°L797 z00z ZY F801 “worl CAE, SL Se 00ce ee ee6lL : 6'S90€ 0002 — s ; Pony ‘ 6661 66 a 8661 vjnyyuds uopohijog LL FS8Z 2002