LICWACG Kepde aa f= WORLD TRADE IN CROCODILIAN SKINS, 1990-1991 Prepared under contract to the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study by The World Conservation Monitoring Centre May 1994 = i meal mies i | | Ms en A) ees 5 ; a“ 4 oP yy ie : WORLD TRADE IN CROCODILIAN SKINS, 1990-1991 Prepared under contract to the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study by Richard Luxmoore and Lorraine Collins May 1994 Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 ODL United Kingdom a jhltitevrednl ale or a ; Wi ; . — abis-Sigominr! braerteull i 14% INTRODUCTION i Two previous reports for the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study have examined the world trade in crocodilian skins from 1980 to 1987. The present report is intended to analyse new information for 1988 to 1991, retaining information from previous years for comparative purposes. Because of the interaction between the trade in classic skins (alligators and true crocodiles) and the caiman skin trade, it was decided to include data on the latter, representing, as they do, the greater proportion of the world’s crocodilian skin trade. METHODS This report is based on an analysis of the annual reports submitted by the Parties to CITES for the years 1988 to 1991. A list of annual reports received at the time of writing is given in Table 1. In order to be comparable with previous IACTS reports, all trade in whole skins and sides of crocodilian species was analysed. One skin was taken to comprise two sides. Trade reported in units of weight, area or length was excluded. Where the number of skins reported by the importing country was different from the number reported by the exporting country, the higher of the two quantities was used. Gross exports from all countries were summed to show the gross world trade. Net imports, taken as the positive difference between gross imports and gross exports, were summed to give the net world trade. The quantity of skins originating in the major source countries within the range of each species was estimated by calculating net world trade for each reported country of origin (or export, where no origin was declared). This was slightly different from previous IACTS studies which used gross trade; however, many countries re-export substantial quantities of skins and so the net trade was considered to give a more reliable estimate of the total quantity of skins in trade. The difficulties of calculating net trade in Caiman skins are discussed in the relevant section of the report. Exports of manufactured products (wallets, watchstraps, handbags, pairs of shoes, leather items, belts and garments) of this species from Europe were also analysed. Py 1) ne .. Wer iaogtal - = i ‘ a “sabe Lihierrod lh heaundpenieten snr hast alan Taare bos, eerhegiILA ire. rivoomnel all | | RL yeh anual tan soytoce 'y) Dobson) tren tare wT THO H oy ANON curt an 1 a ee eran Guy fy wv eanrReKD wv sew y nyctaneryeit as De ,. | oO belie wow 0 ohm! whl Gained WD thw lenlibe td Qu inte ’ die ai ay : , 7 P nee os } * | ee |, atiatigt iche aanalieaccneety a Malone inl i tiliantyicieny oe Alimevig we whirl G0 yo average v ; “ iu ; ; 7 - : f + im! : ; - ; _ : = | | ae _ SaoMTiM iz ROL rane, Geta pel EAI tan pecttnat os od Letpitodrs yareeyer Lersuace ou van i ean a pa | in } oberg 06 60 sive at A AST ol cde gai yattive idan ib bow cases @hcmply asa Wessel alia aid Mie hao seb token ltd Lo. io et oe Oa Oe Gok Ode oe en 1990 * ee & & K wie ke ee HE He KH He Co Pk fs * *& & & &¥ F RK KOK OK * * *%* © % HK & ¥ & * & % * # * € * Oe ee * * * * Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge http://www.archive.org/details/worldtradeincroc94luxm Crocodylus acutus American crocodile A total of only 60 skins of C. acutus was recorded in trade in 1988 and 1989, they were reported as exports by Switzerland as pre-Convention stock or originating in Argentina, a country outside the range of the species. Table 2. Minimum world trade in Crocodylus acutus skins 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Table 3. Minimum gross trade in Crocodylus acutus skins reported as exported from or originating in countries in which the species occurs Crocodylus cataphractus African Sharp-nosed or Slender-snouted Crocodile Table 4. Minimum world trade in Crocodylus cataphractus skins 7 1983 | 1984} 1985| 1986 | 1987] 1988 1989 | 1990, 1991 12619 | aos | so] | 49 | 9s rors] oso] | | Table 5. Minimum net trade in Crocodylus cataphractus skins reported as exported from or originating in countries in which the species occurs 1983 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987] 1988] 1989] 1990 “ce The population of C. cataphractus in Congo was transferred to Appendix II in 1987 subject to an annual quota of 600. Exports were reported as 559 in 1989, 544 in 1990, and 459 in 1991. It thus seems that skins from the 1988 and 1989 quotas were not exported until the following years. All were imported by France. The only other skins noted were 11 from Nigeria, seized on entry into the USA in 1989. Crocodylus johnsoni Australian Freshwater Crocodile Table 6. Minimum world trade in C. johnsoni skins 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 The first recent exports of skins of C. johnsoni were authorised in 1987, after which they rose to a net figure of 1274 in 1988 and declined to a net figure of 884 in 1991. Almost all of the exports were to Japan in 1988. One as yet unsolved mystery is the reported import to the USA of 608 skins of C. johnsoni from Mali in 1987 and a further 34 skins in 1988 - both presumably errors, but it is strange that they should have been repeated in successive years. Singapore was the largest importer of skins in both 1990 and 1991, the percentage of gross trade being 60% and 85% respectively. Exports to Japan accounted for 40% in 1990 and 13% in 1991. Crocodylus moreletii Morelet’s Crocodile A total of 28 C. moreletii skins were reported between 1988 and 1991, almost all as illegal imports to the USA from Mexico or Honduras. Crocodylus niloticus Nile Crocodile Table 7. Minimum world trade in C. niloticus [Gasoee | 1983 | 1984 1985 | 1986| 1987| 1988] 1989] 1990} 1991 34879 | 6510] 10533 | 19507} 23548 | 31253 | 46480 | 43306 | 57892 28983 | 6115 9378 | 18480] 22974] 27526| 41097| 39701 | 48445 Minimum ret trade in C. niloticus has risen from 6115 in 1984 to 48,445 in 1991 (Table 7). There was a slight drop in 1990 due largely to the reduction in exports from Madagascar in that year. The majority of skins in 1991, derived from the ranching programme in Zimbabwe but the other Appendix II populations in African countries accounted for a further 8539 skins (Table 8). The main Appendix I skins traded have been from captive breeding operations in South Africa, whose output has risen from 1905 skins in 1988 to 5296 in 1990 (Table 8). Appendix I imports have included 45 from Guinea Bissau, seized on entry to Spain; 1843 from Mali reported to have been imported by France and 1842 imported by Japan, originating from Namibia. There is no explanation of why France or Japan should have permitted these imports. Most of the Appendix II imports have been within the agreed quotas (Table 9) but there were some notable exceptions. In 1989 France recorded the import of 4542 skins from Madagascar, and Italy imported a further 376. As the total quota for 1989 was 1000 skins, the EC countries reported imports of nearly five times the permitted quantity. dha Maina Gn 6) sefton HO nT) cee A of boverleantd vo? agar) ei wrmrtkyeins - Fo nosh a pod | Biche tot ee de) 1. LOR) oF OE be Snes a BOE ORE] ni OVE ce bcog ren eeye ~— leo of) ocuah ” heduped pen tA carey yhiwelel ad Pitre: dethoqan deve ares ay BERT ae ; : veel ab ABW ait « fied, on a Devinn geting) cory 11 oer bot om a eer = wh jdrey poy => sade waters 4 sLgeirs thes aul ik aoe, 3 oe “ Vv a = = ~~ © < : Lapeer. | 2eer.-) Se | Faey y = ee a coe ies OT Pt : —s } | ; Ge | | we chase ‘ / " | oie } : . ~o “are a et Peal yee Miley ‘emia , WOE wi Lentvortnte cy Warren, 2 Yo orice Ym place ok SORE wi eer erg el) Wo tle amt 1) BRB Ye regi! ber wie! % ae bbe behanrem £3 Wwe monishe WO ts ASS ef. oq bovainm a) 0) yreieee tovlony iA Lestamrigrl axed ovind Llwotis You Watt 0.45 me 6 ted rice vider) of Be welled rsh Rie FEE ROME denn OCF, dhol ap gouty Yo-yanegend renyinl sel? nivw svoqaysiie sone ar att iu degen ot aakaddaed oo ular ieee roe 2 aad LP aor 7 — ; ; we Oo20% daby wih cena * Me me Sve mat eee (6@t bas REO mowted barroget oxse is Vrwvug <3 ery ped ae weston Wo at A Midosie’? oH vsrtubiin weltdin ~) cb obs bheorw eee ~ i Tae | & fem a Ae a vec barca nad ua vr Lo en a . oe yan eee Imports from Malawi also exceeded the quota in 1989, but by a smaller margin. The excess appears to have been due to the import of 500 skins reported by South Africa but not by Malawi. In 1989 net trade of skins reported as originating in Sudan exceeded the quota by 1306. Sudan only reporting one shipment to Germany of 1128 skins. Belgium was the largest importer, recording 3995 skins, whilst Italy, the third largest importer from Sudan, recorded 1010. In 1990 Sudan reported the export of 4121 skins, however, imports of skins reported as originating from Sudan exceeded the quota by 1589. The excess is largely derived from the reports of two of the importing countries: Belgium recorded the import of 3942 skins while Sudan reported exporting 3200 and France recorded importing 829 skins, whilst Sudan reported exporting only two skins. Imports reported from Tanzania exceeded the quota in 1988, but this may have been due to the inclusion of some skins from the previous year’s quota. In 1990 France recorded the import of 1543 skins from Tanzania of which Tanzania reported 1288. Even if the lower figure is taken; the quota has still been exceeded by 288. Table 8. Minimum net trade in C. niloticus skins reported as exported from or originating in countries in which the species occurs. Appendix I a Appendix II Madagascar * ranching programme accepted 1 ened cai anepye euosu dT eee, TOMER oh yet tot BCL ae ae 19 becolaesen ys ie ewelutd m rd [4S iebadsh UY We Preecgiens _ oF Gu. . | seal): - oy prrittioges vlan oat? J Ae abet tah habealat eal? meine or an beens) bey te oat hore RACE, x : oyinil rabitchoy ,aupiite Peone \gyilioaty ms chad Saageat rei Cw attioll dace SOT bo yuteqatiel ony a ptinthe 45D bo seocies wit tari. ¢ euhio’ goo! 7 NOY ale + ihe nut) + nee ; ny all vioyel i MophgeetT Cay ra Wa ck Sota ea reed? eit Datars wh ess ; _ we, sdivker suthis BYE We deniers wold Titans cai Se eno yathegc 1b Vices re my ene = senor saleabes nclals Cle potagien | indedcon DALE peat pee tee } a . Ani A ee didn edt worl. sain wey . nl | : 7 i zt Hj , ‘ a. +7 "we nomatlipal wll ir ee ‘gaits LAP” BaP: i ry ji bobgesee nitueE wa fautyet ul . ae i 4 ‘plamtna'T coir tes CPM dn rege! ods bnhiwty nm VOLE nl ile a ieee eee sae aie 7 ; 7 7 A eh nat eal Ms Suet: ~ ral. toe ith ws, Sed Sse eithds noe 2a ft cane ts stent " ip ‘) om : 7 tery mn a pt Po a ee letconre MAA unk i hy io op (wis i pil ie mer . F ale —— Table 9. Export quotas, excluding hunting trophies, for different populations of Crocodylus niloticus transferred to Appendix II under the special criteria set out in Resolutions Conf. 5.21 and 7.14. * ranching programme accepted W = Wild R = Ranched I Population transferred to Appendix I N Wild nuisance specimens PT Toss[ en] wes] we] 0] om] mo] ms] me) Gewese [eo] | | ol fem [w | o0f wwf vol wf TPES (vee a iB a al = _ lel fel | ih. ps tee ed eal eee | 1000 | 1000 | 1000] + [ieee 7 prea bien a ee ee | 1000 | ogi past eres elt | del le | 2000 | 2000 ie abet ‘ : Note: The quota for the Madagascan wild population in 1988 was increased from 1000 to 3784 by postal procedures described in Notification to the Parties dated August 18, 1991. This was to allow the export of a stockpile of skins. Similarly the 1992 quota for Sudan was also to enable the export of a stockpile of skins. nm 66 ale vel ena). Yo. Tieden yw wna asiitib el erkjew goddat gait ween egal al : DET hae (22% heal gee? af ero teu MiiCs 'monge ov ysl 17 ait Ob + a a ee en | naw WwW okpaibe om - a €l @) ole hal ht fale ee = Sam ere ae ta br a Qo =a SSS po 5 aus. jars | ents | Regen | oneer hart x. . ——— 7s “eo 1 Vine sleet Lorene. ies x at saiese® Minimum net trade in skins of C. novaeguineae rose from 27,325 in 1983 to 47,674 in 1990. The majority of these skins were reported to have originated in Papua New Guinea. The quota for Indonesia has been increased from 20,000 in 1988 to 25,000 in 1991. There have been reports of a substantial illegal trade in skins from Irian Jaya to Singapore which do not appear in the statistics. Singapore had taken out a reservation on the species, but this was dropped in 1990. France was the largest importer of skins in 1989 with a gross figure of 16,316; Japan recorded 14,426 and was the second largest importer. However, in 1990 imports by Japan increased by over 50% to 31,405 and imports by France declined by over 50% to 7488. The 1991 figures for gross and net world trade are lower than expected, but this may be due to the unavailability of the Papua New Guinea annual report. France, one of the largest importers, reported importing only 2805 skins, and Japan reported gross imports of 27,271, both down on the previous year. Singapore was the third largest importer in 1991, with a gross figure of 3546. Crocodylus porosus Saltwater Crocodile Table 13. Minimum world trade in C. porosus skins. eer | 1983 | 1984] 1985] 1986] 1987} 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 7169 | 6431 | 8062 | 8183 | 7684| 11303 | 17677] 15838 | 16218 5398 | 5358] 6497} 5752| 7166 15928 | 13036 | 14900 Table 14. Minimum net trade in C. porosus skins reported as exported from or originating in countries in which the species occurs. (ae al Table 15. Export quotas for the Indonesian population of Crocodylus porosus transferred to Appendix II under the special criteria set out in Resolutions Conf. 5.21 and 7.14. oi 5 . I ’ oe Cirapeen ofl eet ar STA Th CM ii od BOE, TS Ci) qo Seu pomenyow) a WG | a ae oy ft ted sent vimnctnl ei BA tt wi : mt COE ETS AIT CRE dead WE »* sedate ad ectumead Veg Mi eaittinbertiee 0 Ay ed agire fn eckson TROT AF OOO, AP8 PACE 0d OOF eget ro ie i j ; $0. geri emens wf fi core hed oatitgl eins Teiae Bip Gb anew ts cregale OF fr sbn ie ener 0 PN a we wer je cow cece! DOP a tapi Baay ahd ane eae nahel qd ony aod Ae is ' Did ae A MIG) aut) (oa Me Made e) aera acm 23. : . 7 " get efrgil ee! aT ae Mit Wie tly Haul esi aes i ah iagied iWin ind t if a ee weg yd y a) WOME saan ally Be yates HR vibav seth Pe mani aed” tm aed) 75%, ayes CY GE re be») ohne isa Eta x oo be ‘thts lai ha OAS abi Keitel Lape, ate pik caagyyl tl tyr Hone .ereneel soeoepeen aintepena re mi i Serrarpns hea! Eri wll ee aber ie tre vier) ad) oo ol Gon. VE oe Ot tT)’ : < 7 . Se = = r i : ie wurgtt es ett “ee whee a — | sis wie cid ail opr meme - Minimum net trade in skins of C. porosus has increased from 5398 in 1983 to 15,928 in 1989. The totals for 1990 and 1991 are lower than net trade in 1989 due to the reduction in exports from Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Skins from Papua New Guinea have fluctuated from 3910 in 1986 to a peak of 8204 in 1989. Skins from Indonesia have increased from 200 in 1984 to 4424 in 1989 (Table 14). The country’s population of this species was transferred to Appendix II in 1985 under a quota system, the quotas being shown in Table 15. Exports from Australia have increased as the ranching programme has become a major skin producer. Japan was the largest importer of skins in the period 1988-1991, France was the next most important destination (Table 16). Switzerland increased its imports seven-fold from 1989 to 1990 but imports declined in 1991, a possible reason is increased imports of C. niloticus skins in this year (Table 10). The volume of the unreported trade is unknown but was estimated to be 30,000 - 40,000 a year for both C. porosus and C. novaeguineae combined in 1987 (Ashley, 1989). Singapore held a reservation on this species until 1989 and so did not report trade before then. It is to be expected that the withdrawal of reservations by Singapore will have reduced the illegal trade. Table 16. Net imports of C. porosus skins to major importing countries. * Net exporter in this year 1985 | 1986 1987 1988 1989 | 1990 1991 aio7| s47 | ass] seas | 989 | soe aly pesmi toaslt hPa. tower fv wn 3132 | 1346 | 3210 6347 8729 9853 7083 Sorell a ed ee ee ae ee ee eee ee eee ed ls ee 23 mg a [ses [eoneecilowig 2 fin en ap em Crocodylus siamensis Siamese Crocodile Table 17. Minimum world trade in C. siamensis skins a... 1983 | 1984] 1985] 1986] 1987] 1988] 1989 | 1990, 1991 foros | | soo] ai| cos] sei] 2050] iris | 2808 | 1400 | ee | Lt] ssn] sos] oer | soso] iis] aos | 00 | Exports of C. siamensis from Thailand grew from 0 in 1983 to nearly 3000 in 1990. In 1989 all were said to derive from the Samutprakan Crocodile Farm and all were imported to Japan, with the exception of 400 in 1988 and 600 in 1989, the latter being imported by Italy. Output from the farm was said to be 2700 in 1989 (Luxmoore, 1992). Japan was again the largest importer of skins in 1990, accounting for 85% of gross trade. Italy and the US imported the remaining skins. Since Thailand has not submitted an annual report for 1989, all the trade was recorded by the importing countries for that year. All imports in 1991 were reported by Japan. 10 wh slaw AT) QBR4 oh MY, EE Gk SBOE ERO, ocr hepenet ont wail xeon, 0) Fo etre of aber me = : = a tal leet spender basil sue aberes iti te a ae eC - ot anid} TAGl a SOR fee hae; ar! OHO? gi SLA & at betistend. oval equild' eri aura t Hoc wit ok? bo a Under} af ere y atl hE bla d) VO) pat as REUL AUS acc) been oved @ < “ll whedasY wh treet tfived nakcaay seks. any) OW @ CQQUTTEOR oF Th aimersigye 0+ Geena ; teonyat _wacelaay cife wcgia atiet! aid Panperyygtrery, ult aad ete ee Hoktopitoss Mugla Prag) Deo altar! a Tagged wip esinemrd ee ye po mins eect to ILA anil te sagig od basrenyte >: (lize ovis path naQauq Tad ig7et teal Wad > sree TERT womia & of tomate! aebeisa elt eel vel le eenypnien ela hitricdee eerctos aby aside fete Bt OM al Auena strat itis 65 9 cit tye is SMF) Weigel or qeiieiy he enct to oii i halt zest Wa meigp ne awa ocd Bilin woes PO od CHET di ANT Ji of htt aa 7 e06r Fast ig iy hebticaranierre EO de OR? ne. stb ar Hains Keble Wii) ual aii ; n ri , aa ets visti wineD Pears Tony ctiiese eth igh adfnomuny.vig stoentbemons Ted ee VAG saints’ Fo erwgsy jin boyizdihetep eal Ti os biershasi ‘Leas Seal toate? add gt shale amaranth ot sry a0 ives] ei ipeetleanial oval wid woth deity? Pp atica? pes ‘neni how . hs Sele}, iy rer hei a. faa ck Mies ak AR | i i WA alin i y vt ws, OF ron yhe gig cast tanaa h iG Lettann) peailgnivmal eniite Upmensret ber ahiougdh Thera a tua Ao estan PTO ih si cece Peck Ch gfiag some a een: ehury on ality Ausplivers Samoa By pte ane ali’ une al ae ahtirren yes. sy Morsgveu! seid LAGOS 9) eel od Aue iat aay wt ab Li og.3a'y nid veoh Hin aa 2 Ar Sauna 2172 ia leit atinde kerio recs te Fa Beytlod at weve ou UWL (1S altel) trac (10ST tert: uatn bers ugar) ia: ten tlw putt PO Fregea) ia: badipper paid val, gees mss SR bereits Yi torigiche Lamoltl atime eS ae Seta ah everett ers e) gelled, ne Table 20. Reported countries of origin of Caiman crocodilus skins derived from CITES annual reports, 1983- 1991. Colombia Indonesia = + HTLPPEEEPLE ih 3 Switzerland 13 Vo epg ies 1 wet ile nor Hoey? inky anaes uy «£341 Oreos tattans CATIO mor) bavi om ime | A a Seats = Miueegas date = fe @ i ae: ae J i 7) = ‘ 4 mG | t 4 " et hau 7 : meee at PSH P | ses a Py Table 21. Minimum net imports of Caiman crocodilus skins to EC countries. [imponee | ies] _was| _1ses[ ver] ross] sos] 1990 [yr |v | ee es eo ane Fe ae 36ss08 | 275285 xas70 | 7972 | 2259 sniso| rae] ro] os] oo | it | aos | 056 4 672 28 81 jones |_| ses] ao | ma | oo [al | 292738 | 661404 | 236342 | 117947] 160553 | 33494} 100206 | 59966 207831 newerunis | 1sooo] of of | oof fo frome | of of | | os | oo | wera wma | 2sei| room| aso | o| ssa] 55 px | oa | om yor | sso | soo] oo | of sous Total 692,916 | 992,830 | 412,123 | 182,715 | 261,568 | 46,717] 146,601 | 130,563 356,516 Table 22. Imports of crocodile skins (410112/4103.200-209) and crocodile leather (410512 and 410522/4107.210-201) recorded in Thailand Customs statistics (kg). * January-October only. 10013} 2029 9845 — > fate ale Fal ee 14 ie oe a deinngdr DARD rude! qulleeon Genial’ fra ahtoenwed 167) sertanet et en a a — NSS ao. a es herwol~) meee feet DS ci is 2h Se 5 anneal Dee ] ey, ar / wey a = pain re rr oe a | |, ai Lo i rs a —>—e whe } asthe phe i. ) Famer. | webene oo oe - ieee ~-- ——— os 'e ae! I M i Se er [ — ay oe | means ate — y Pi } +2 im ' 4 b0Tt pre ee -4+—- =o aus ~ a canara a | ' Meet Ve Weal 4 Creat ‘ Ses } Sr ane ~ . o> yew pine a - F « a t.@ Pe i ee } | inva UR 5 r j P Shs -) i - _ + Aas | ws An ay 7 \ - a = fi te 3, o> eine ae ge rae toe « , y = Sy |. 32 RRL BIRDIES) cealioel silted Dae. WME OTE) end cides by omg Sy was ws B on 7 ie J : &® Reirelibe amr iin”s | yotiet bil Lice § rises | 5a i a oi : ‘ii (or ape eo bh Fe = PL | z i. = : Fe RE | ‘ g " Sha ne Retail shops in Singapore and Thailand have been reported to have huge quantities of caiman skin products on sale and this trade may be facilitated by Singapore’s having taken a reservation on Caiman crocodilus when it joined CITES in 1987. The reservation was withdrawn on 1 February 1992. Singapore Customs statistics no longer specify crocodile skins separately, mixing them instead with skins of fish and other reptiles, but the Thai Customs statistics have a separate category for crocodile skins. These are shown in Table 22. Both skin and leather are reported but skin is by far the greater quantity. Imports rose rapidly from around 2-3 tonnes prior to 1985 to 219t in 1988. In the first ten months of 1990, some 90t were imported. The main sources have been Colombia, Singapore and Venezuela, suggesting that the skins have been _of Caiman crocodilus rather than another species of crocodilian. Thailand reports its overseas trade by country of origin rather than country of consignment and it is possible that the skins represent re-exports rather than direct exports from Venezuela or Colombia. CITES statistics record few exports of crocodilian skins to Thailand, although there were 14,000 in 1988, 1098 in 1989 and 3 in 1990. It would appear that the remainder of the trade has taken place entirely outside CITES control. There _is no reliable way to convert the trade reported by weight to numbers of skins because much depends on the _ cut and method of preservation. Dixon et al. (1988) estimated that the mean weight of Caiman crocodilus skins imported to Japan was 260g and, using this figure, the Customs statistics suggest imports of about 840,000 skins in 1988, 277,000 in 1989 and over 362,000 skins in 1990. This is far in excess of the legal trade reported to CITES. On the 22nd April 1991, after receiving numerous complaints from other Parties regarding Thailand’s failure to implement CITES, the Secretariat recommended a trade ban (Anon. 1991). The Thai trade ban was lifted on 2 April 1992 after the approval of wildlife laws which would permit full implementation of CITES (Anon. 1992b) | Most of the skins imported to Europe are manufactured into leather goods for use within Europe or for export. _ Net exports of the main categories of manufactured products from Italy and France in 1989 to 1991 are given in Tables 23-29, showing the declared countries of origin. From 1990 to 1991, France exported a total of 914,219 watchstraps, 253 pairs of shoes, 418 handbags, 21,398 leather items, 102 garments and 6,672 belts. Total combined exports in all of these commodities have declined over these two years when compared to the period 1989 to 1990. The Italian Annual Report data for manufactured products was not available for 1991, | therefore the figures were calculated using import records from other CITES Parties. Italy exported 4,372 wallets, 149,409 watchstraps, 151,887 pairs of shoes, 10,138 handbags, 82,986 leather items, 859 garments ) and 32,183 belts. These figures too, are down compared to 1989/1990 exports. It is difficult to predict with accuracy how many leather products can be manufactured from a given number of skins and moreover a certain, possibly large, percentage of the products are retailed within Europe. Thus there is little useful that can be said about the quantities of products exported. However, the proportions of skins and products reported from different countries of origin are more instructive. The countries from which the constituent skins were said to have originated bear some resemblance to those from which skins were imported (Tables 30-31) but there are some differences in the proportions from each source. Figure 1 shows the net number of skins imported to France from different countries and the net number of products from different declared origins exported in 1989 and 1990. The majority of products were said to have originated in Venezuela, Guyana and Colombia. The relationship between skin imports and product exports of skins originating in Guyana is surprising. However, as 98% of the manufactured products were watchstraps, the discrepancy is possibly not as large as it appears. The same discrepancy is apparent when comparing 1989/1990 skin imports to 1990/1991 manufactured product exports. In this instance 91% were watchstraps. Figure 2 shows the net number of skins imported to Italy from 1987 to 1989 and the number of manufactured products exported from 1988 to 1989. From Figure 2 it can be seen that a large discrepancy is apparent. The great majority of products were said to have been made from skins of Venezuelan and Colombian origin, but the majority of skins imported derived from Bolivia, with substantial quantities from Paraguay and Argentina. As Venezuela, Colombia and Guyana all have management programmes for C. crocodilus, they are widely known as legal sources of skins. It is possible that they were declared as the source of the skins for re-exported manufactured products because this causes fewer administrative problems on import. The more contentious sources, such as Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia appear to be under-represented. This may well be related 15 fe crebery eithe pentizs bo sabitowny daud yred O) bones wotavedt bowls iP bre — 3 ete mitwaees nia acs HOBei eye @ doe plu de Oma Ys Leeteitedpoat Ae) ibingeS 1 an eeu sew aotted eid aiff ed Mb eit: Abey Diesel Wael gts ih lips an add ian re liber goo! af € ‘3 a a y " ’ ‘ ue Sell wir acho ORES tA 4 we > ahigy 2 ul sabi eg SgepG > uRET elt dunt get tein’ wm om pnt WDM eRenY ay ad et oy dpe aud Gane) ee wadiesl ja ned) Ce LOS nlite" meee OP carn DUO te alerted ma) Mona) eal af SBOE A) PAL ae oh aire epee Eee ineowiannt 4 fawiad Wi wits vit tidtgypiuk alae clone’! fae RH SIS. ering > agent oerl Saeyuits » nie aT : : : ee — Aloette lois ‘iulieuy Sa csr ut BE - ebiiaaeaey: 2 4) bah Ls (iat atid whol Ys labs Big Te Wale, eon re Po i Aad Mit wee. iy) dbtaitogs¥ Inrl Pee) ait ald wibley shoes te i el i : Bas ake ng S000 inane aA Oe Bt spi Wreath wbyast hye, Latadiagt to) verte irl 2 lo aangie: wile ie yy * denltnet, 220 abtarive (a aaets ors eked wall Ae wats Wp imate isees sary ‘Le prspelesers ikaaidy eepigoed anki To peetin apa Uyik gf iehaqin 2. 9-0 reno 2 if a - patie al Whi oes, eR Y Yo. ks Pst aint Act) pen iccteacyh Lies \ war! Raye tit Lo -y-rareney te Iainogls ts moons ete eer» vapid eT vestry Pain baw gag Sauer eral ' ee aihet Hagnt veld * siifleg “tha aa ee eae aS nh wi Ta PR) Le > ate CROKE gl Pi i - gyi’ wets aaah) Micnegrs So © rian ivio Ww ~~ i) BSS _ 905, 1171592 1685 19 rod on vias qin evade i hearethith pat mite taller CHAD) atl! bearer: Mie 2 (as | + 5 F q { ' P- : [ ! + 4 ; ! ( i. ~ E zi | Lista i fis! dol 4% 3 iz! le ae : - ; > S : i ee ; ae Be a ¢ * : 4 - H : i * - on ' > om _ a3 : Ps - x. * = = : = a | | | ~ - 7 - J < 14 : ‘ ae == Saat 7 bt a 45 La Le > . | anil . . i—_ brs ‘ » -la 4 = oe v ‘i f j - = 2 e 24 “oe < 2 . } i ; k { — 4 Ee = s a BE ' - 1) i R . = a= a 5 | : , : e U ! iq i i ih 1 Table 28. Net export from France in 1990 of products manufactured from Caiman crocodilus skin from different declared countries of origin. Australia a Bolivia ecm 1456 Cameroon Colombia teeare| 41889 ea eee Guyana Pe eam] 372788 16 wn Honduras Indonesia Panama a El Salvador South Africa 173282 614998 Thailand an Nn Venezuela Zimbawe Unknown 3) Total Qa 5 o Table 29. Net export from France in 1991 of products manufactured from Caiman crocodilus skin from different declared countries of origin. Country of origin Bolivia Cameroon Chad Colombia Guatemala Guyana Honduras Indonesia Paraguay El Salvador Former Soviet Union Cc a > 20 a saesuill ae aoa fay) T Hn i cnn i en ta Ig HEL al Ait an tes one cy ry ae EN 26st sheet nope i ; ent ys oT f ud ) ’ Table 29. continued EE CS a i ae eens Olio Cracnaaal CDT aris ngars Sle 18,594 21 seeaey abaane baronet et ran > tm wail" ei nigh Thensithiine beipainety oe G - al en fat a, la im ae can i= Le be? emi om se a hs Other species There has been no reported trade in 1989, 1990 and 1991 in skins of the following species: Crocodylus intermedius Orinoco Crocodile, Crocodylus palustris Mugger, Crocodylus rhombifer Cuban Crocodile, Gavialis gangeticus Gharial, Tomistoma schlegelii False Gharial One skin of Melanosuchus niger was reported seized on entry to the USA in 1989. Table 32. Minimum net trade in classic crocodilian skins reported in CITES annual reports. * Gross exports from the USA a es aS Ts TT eS TT a Pewee fers sa) a] «| 1] »| 0] «| 7 = (TTT es) certo NE eS Pa EN PPT fenaaes eof [fe s | e me ame| so wn 3 Sagan TE are a fas ay CS ee ers er ee en he seen ee: [2808 | __ ET ST ee ee ea (a ee a a Femongl == i a ee a BEd ef ee apie Refs ls ew JS elf DISCUSSION The world trade in classic crocodilian skins is summarised in Table 32. There has been an overall increase in the reported trade from 65,245 in 1984 to over 240,000 in 1991. As has been outlined for the individual species, this increase has been due to the development of controlled management programmes in several countries around the world. As a result of these changes, C. novaeguineae was overtaken by A. mississippiensis as the main species in trade since 1987. In 1990 trade of A. mississippiensis is almost double that of 1989 probably as a result of skins produced in 1989 not being traded until the following year. US production reached a peak in 1989 of 112,284 and declined in 1990 to 80,276 (Luxmoore, 1992). There is inevitably a further trade in classic crocodilian skins which takes place outside CITES controls, but there is little evidence for it. The principal areas of concern are Indonesia, where illegal harvesting of C. porosus and C. novaeguineae continues, and Madagascar, where the export quotas have been exceeded by almost a factor of five. The trade in Caiman skins is still far less well regulated and the majority of this is believed not to be under the control of CITES. Documented trade was in the region of 800,000 in 1988, falling to some 340,000 in 1991, although the data are less complete for that year. However, there is evidence of a similar quantity of skins entering Thailand we 1988 without any CITES control. Europe is the major destination for legal Caiman skins, although there is evidence that some skins illegally enter the Community. There is a substantial tanning and manufacturing industry in Europe, 22 sdiaage gneve ait Pe aati st 1S haps OCRI CBEL wr ahett epee) anilas’)> wees iosiedeevert > .wegig@li vilrenibinn said rae) sabibarscse) Orava POY 74 ; M “ : : F ete (rogabts yrmantlenal Bere tal cr ghey, otha tba at CURE a ae paly ad ehh: Ad Gosce. Laruyyy "y: ani Durer ha? 4 Ay LL) efaerey Al eae eutes rere a aii Wine tanttatcigcny aietalo «Eyalnwe | et tert aed er Leet eget tai a" ; ! | y i aaa “vr particularly Italy and France, and crocodile skin products are re-exported to destinations all around the world. It is doubtful if the declared origins of the products are correct in all cases. In 1992 the CITES Standing Committee proposed a CITES Trade Ban with Italy, recommending that Parties adopt stricter domestic measures in accordance with Article XIV, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The absence of laws, inadequate regulations, poor border controls and the issuance of CITES documents not in accordance with the Convention have led to Italy becoming a key location for illegal trade (Anon. 1992a). In 1990 Caiman skin prices quoted from Italian industry sources indicated that legal skins could be bought in Venezuela for US$ 40-50 per sq.ft compared with US$ 25-32 per sq. ft for illegal skins (Jenkins and Broad in prep.). After 1993 there will be effectively no internal border restrictions in the EC, therefore if one country is slack in its control of illegal trade the whole EC will be open to illegal products. Since 1987, several countries that previously had export quotas for Nile Crocodile skins, have adopted ranching programmes and increased their output accordingly. A new resolution (Conf. 7.14) was passed in 1989 redefining the special criteria under which populations of Appendix I species could be transferred to Appendix II. One of the chief features of this is the imposition of a time limit on such quota schemes of a maximum of four years before ranching programmes must be instituted. The phenomenal growth in the supply of skins for legal trade has had a serious impact on the price of skins and must place in question the economic viability of farming operations in many countries. It is not likely that this will have had a comparable impact on the illegal hunting for skins because this activity has far fewer overhead costs associated with it. However it must threaten the existence of several ranching programmes and this could have potentially serious consequences for crocodilian conservation. Another feature of the crocodile farming industry which gives rise to concern is the introduction of exotic species of crocodiles for the purpose of establishing new farming operations. This began with the import of Nile Crocodiles to Brazil for a farm in Rio Grande do Sul and continued with the establishment of a captive population of Cuban Crocodiles in Viet Nam. In view of the danger of these species escaping and building up feral populations, the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group has adopted a resolution opposing the use of exotic species of crocodilian outside their natural range in areas where there are wild populations of other species of crocodilian and where they are therefore more likely to be able to survive in the local environment. The international trade in crocodile skins has therefore passed from a phase where it was threatening wild populations in many countries in the 1960s and 1970s, through one of restriction in the early 1980s to rapid growth in the late 1980s. The 1990s look as if they will be characterised by problems associated with over-production. It is to be hoped that crocodilian conservation will not be overlooked in the ensuing upheaval. 23 a a ahew wll bate its aikelinn deol od Lorton’ i Key ‘ire ‘stone wy ae MRrioom bee Gone bow ys tral Petar -- ; Sem Uy ni sar Ae zig od 16 acighy bots ob a ene, boyides wna taut pealamayinoder: ‘ie thay od eat ARTI x ‘tye Anreq adlanin vii? caeeD tt ROOT wh! J Yo wrender all line oA TW dip ieang VIX slnA Gig bogubiooe ae emcees mice hee dt iba eanpinecvim ai aor fremciy i Shit) $4 poremest afl hin hrm bt om ani palaged weairyatical aig vide aha) HOR1 i A6oeO( wey alae beg: bt It Mindat woud yin Nb ind ay tlt ad bal wed galowver) hye oq OF ey ee wldansirey Yaad | tidgind k Edaig, ariiite Ingyl Jags Py Sife) Asertinoe yeti how alee | OIG sah tive eI ECR TNA: (pep ah hell haw 246% sty vale tug mt AAihp reg SES ONE Ne aorta, be) sec aft, olewy: “tages yas fexfens bi oe wale’ ee it: a) 50a ire otiony/} "8 sith tel a iat suo Eeoronnni m a m is ae phair hell ob sg a) sil ata 1 SH) ond, dkhe “de PgR bial Whancireey acl! sone Lanrvewe, eer ieee 1" a) pred.) ie ge rei ty AbeelAnrs tig ait eee ae - ba”. =.) Cb tee tnitbataned tibods & cnige t Pilkey In Upnsisaltricey toasty cle : > tee ah wrt athe Rae WS AT oti) bd) oN ge elt ed o pie : io . ; Bl! tte a! Mee ; poe wants to qian atuel cag ial - Wai seesagis nant W ly Ylkcaiy ometienos otk we wi eh ath Sols wih widhit | alt ot meh Ria aie elit nips, Weeven 10 TORE F i) faces it Feast tia 4 Grathveveniny re iibnsies wens" ah ca ayv}a ata y Viana ne into? slits edt Te # Vice Negi baat Ds ate UR Trey, irsr rei ay oe. spall ont 1 sengsieg ae ta, i (ier rine Beatiae) bere lye oy oe ob rina sili sad bee re p afin aiken augicah vith. We sie wv ; ge Ube tr Su wf) uctiviogyi., fiesitinice: 4 ® betel geil qed tal ft en wae itlo ‘We acshialiryey | Lili be weet: aes sl i oar “disert sith Adivasi d) aban ot iat iy fy ann beauty Oe ee ee arectienae |r Baba eat Nis ames Sascha: Phe Weccere Seat) 40 Serie) onal. wl Livy (ai tere. =: | Maeva sie i Codahivd vel tee 1 W deme References Anon. 1988. Caiman smuggling uncovered. Traffic Bulletin 10(1/2): 2. Anon. 1989. Seizures and prosecutions. Traffic Bulletin 11(1): 14. Anon. 1991. CITES Notification to the Parties No. 636. 1991. Thailand: Ban on CITES Trade, 22 April 1991. Anon. 1992. Seizures and prosecutions. Traffic Bulletin 13: 2. Anon. 1992a. CITES Notification to the Parties No. 675. 1992. Italy: Recommendations of the Standing Committee, 30 June 1992. Anon. 1992b.CITES Notification to the Parties No. 673. 1992. Thailand: Lifting of Recommended Ban on Trade in CITES Specimens, 2 April 1992. Ashley, J.D. 1989. Introduction. IACTS Report, pp. 4-10. Dixon, A.M., Milliken, T. and Tokunaga, H. 1988. Japanese imports of crocodile and alligator skins 1970-July 1986. IACTS Report, pp. 67-168. Jenkins, M. and Broad, S. (Eds) (in press) International Trade in Reptile Skins: A Review and Analysis of the main consumer markets. Luxmoore, R.A. 1992. Directory of Crocodile Farming Operations, Second Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pani, M. (unpublished report, 1991) Reptile skin trade in Italy. TRAFFIC Europe reptile skin trade report. WCMC et al., 1993. Significant trade in Wildlife: A review of select Animal Species in CITES Appendix II. Draft report to the CITES Animals Committee, June 1993. Acknowledgements Some of the original data analysis for this report was carried out by Samantha Emmerich. John Caldwell and Duncan Mackinder assisted with the output of statistics. Lesley McGuffog helped with the checking of legislation. 24 : ( : wv “4 ee 1 i ’ 4 y, i » re ‘ i j my DREN APR wna yay i” ei o0itk ta) G gti. rt He) 4 ae ; ni _ ae att Lh nwa ere tier fone Rotate rows a 19. i ond Hiya AY A yh con al wh pipet BEND. 2 ae et miei oh re Mess TT deere = tie pede” ” ata jain ba Vs sti nae tlatd Suir Mid Lied sstigatl will (oi'n fie) 1 ys! i - \ ne ) wea on tnonmotak ig ytd spoil ge ETO... davaee anti oi-aeatagll Mt rare ion . : els ¥ thin Sh colystong@ REETID | 4 ie us i ee ; jo wie LAT pA er aed — s OF mt ami catores st Me a a rw Peaapie sai L Seer TH miganesivt | Aint ooh vi io “ Hi wa WH suits \qeiwhasiereetah) feaarey ait bat a ie ‘a baniast Ty +s Deal hye Gy Yr suey fo preen sat oar rT ih {hs when: BOs wi OPE ope » tet Pah iateaiiae tutte ho etihay Kg pt. sosv98 14 hn i COT le ARE nih. corti) elim anh Oa TLD ah picd-haip de oy) aver meas ye ele) ae ilk verter liable te) rept Bk ag ucn @& Tae camermn nen UNEP WWE 219 Huntingdon Roa WCMC provides information services on conservation and sustainable use of Cambridge, CB3 0 the world’s living resources and helps others to develop information systems Tel: of their own, The Centre was founded in 1988 by IUCN — The World Fax: WORLD CONSERVATION Conservation Union, UNEP — United Nations Environment Programme and Email: i MONITORING CENTRE WWE — World Wide Fund for Nature. wwe