Full text of "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"

See other formats

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

(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

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

L8T 69

bOLr 966 LItZ 1691 ce =

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)

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 <sG’ HK CZ JP Fil ES SK HU
Re-exporter

CH = Switzerland, DE = Germany, RU = Russian Federation, FR = France, US = USA, AE = United Arab
Emirates, PL = Poland, DK = Denmark, TR = Turkey, BE = Belgium, GB = United Kingdom, LU = Luxembourg,
SG = Singapore, HK = Hong Kong, CZ = Czech Republic, JP = Japan, FI = Finland, ES = Spain, SK = Slovakia,
HU = Hungary.

C= caviar derived from aquaculture, W = wild caught

Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity.

Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database.

When importer and (re-)exporter records are compared for caviar re-exports, additional discrepancies in
reported quantities in trade are indicated (Fig. 9). In general, higher quantities of re-exports are reported in
re-exporter records compared to importer records, which is the opposite of what is shown in the
comparison of direct exports (see Fig. 7). This is especially notable for the Russian Federation, where re-
exporter data show that 74 t of caviar was reported re-exported, but importer data shows that only 28 t
was reported imported. Since in theory import and re-export records should match, as each specimen
should be recorded at the point of re-export and at the point of import, this indicates that misreporting is
occurring at some point in the trade chain leading to discrepancy between reported imports and reported
re-exports.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14)

Fig. 9: Re-export quantities of wild caviar, reported re-exports vs. reported imports (t), 1998-2006

200

160
140

G Re-exporter records
@ Importer records

Quantity (t)
r)
Oo

=}
fa
=o
gs
gs

Re-exporter

CH = Switzerland, DE = Germany, RU = Russian Federation, FR = France, US = USA, AE = United Arab
Emirates, PL = Poland, DK = Denmark, TR = Turkey, BE = Belgium, GB = United Kingdom, LU = Luxembourg,
SG = Singapore, HK = Hong Kong, CZ = Czech Republic, JP = Japan, Ff = Finland, ES = Spain, SK = Slovakia,
HU = Hungary.

C = caviar from aquaculture.

Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity.

Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database.

Other points to note from CITES export data include that over 7 t of caviar has been reported as re-

exported to Brazil from 1998-2006, mainly from EU Member States and the USA, however no imports
have been reported.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14)

Trade routes into the EU

Reported EU imports have declined since 1999, mirroring declines in the global caviar trade. Apart from
in 2005 when there were significant imports from Kazakhstan, Iran was by far the major exporting
country for reported imports of wild caviar into the EU, followed by the Russian Federation, (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10: Reported imports of wild caviar into the EU by exporting country (t)

100
90
80
70
60
50
40

Quantity (t)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year

jg Rm RUGAZOKZ w Other |

IR = Iran, RU = Russian Federation, AZ = Azerbaijan, KZ = Kazakhstan, Other = Bulgaria, China, Romania.
Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity.
Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database.

Up until 2001, Switzerland was the main re-exporter of wild caviar into the EU; at its highest the volume
re-exported was 26 t (Fig. 11). After 2001, reported re-exports from Switzerland sharply declined and
persisted in relatively small quantities (under 3 t) (Fig. 11).

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14)

Fig. ||: Reported re-exports to EU by re-exporting country, based on re-exporter data (t)

Quantity (t)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year

BAE BCH ORU BUS G Other

AE = United Arab Emirates, CH = Switzerland, RU = Russian Federation, US = USA, Other = Czech Republic,
France, Turkey.

Note: Country omissions indicate zero quantity.

Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database.

The EU has reported 12 t of reported direct exports of caviar from aquaculture from 1998-2006,
following a roughly increasing trend (Fig. 12).

EU reported imports of caviar from aquaculture operations have followed the same trend as global
reported imports from aquaculture, increasing since 1998 (Fig. 13). Although reported imports of caviar
from aquaculture into the EU are still occurring in relatively small quantities, 5 t at maximum, it is notable

that caviar from aquaculture operations represented approximately 31% of all reported caviar imports in
2006.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14)

Fig. 12: Reported direct exports of caviar from aquaculture from the EU (t), 1998-2006

Quantity (t)
wo

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year

1998 2000 2001

Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database.

Fig. 13: EU reported imports by source (t), 1998-2006

140 r
120 -
100

Quantity (t)

20 +

Aquaculture
oO Wild catch

Source: Data derived from the CITES Trade Database.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State impiementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14)

Trade data analysis indicates that non-CITES Parties within the EU area are involved in trade. For
example, EU Member States report re-exports of caviar to Andorra. However, the role of such countries
needs to be investigated as a lower priority for further research. The same is true for some dependant
territories such as the Netherlands Antilles, where there are no reported imports, yet re-exports of caviar
have been reported. However, it should be noted that many small island countries seem to have poor

CITES reporting, possibly due to a lack of capacity.
Exports and quotas

Table 4 shows the CITES export quotas that have been allocated for range State caviar exports from
2006-2008. Quotas for wild caviar were not published in 2006, except for Acipenser persicus for Iran,
meaning that no trade was permitted for species other than A. persicus. For 2006, no export quotas were
published by the CITES Secretariat to permit international trade in Amur River sturgeon species A.
schrenckii and Huso dauricus. Commercial fishing of these species is banned in the Russian Federation and
no commercial catch quotas are established, meaning that commercial trade in caviar from these species is

illegal’. However, in 2008, CITES export quotas were published for these species.

006-2008 (kg)

Table 4: CITES wild caviar quotas for 2
| Exporter | axonti‘<‘éM TG 2007 2008

Acipenser oueldenstaedtit

Alcipenser stellatus eee

Huso huso

Alctpenser schrenckit

Huso dauricus

Acipenser gueldenstaedtii

Acipenser nudiventris

Alcipenser persicus

Acipenser spp.

Acipenser stellatus
Huso huso

Acipenser gueldenstaedtit

Alcipenser nudiventris :
Hauso huso
Acipenser gueldenstaedtit

Alcipenser schrenckii

Alctpenser spp.

Acipenser stellatus i

Huso dauricus

Huso huso

NP = Not published.
Source: Adapted from the CITES website.

Caviar data from the UNEP-\WCMC CITES Trade Database indicates that from 2001-20057, the Russian
Federation has not submitted export data to the Secretariat, for any sturgeon species (Annex 1).

Additionally, in 2005, Kazakhstan did not submit export data for any sturgeon species. In 2006, Iran also
did not submit export data.

® Vaisman, A. and Fomenko, P. (2006). Stberia’s black gold: Harvest and trade in Amur River stu ] ]
: : iC f 60 the Ru
Federation. TRAFFIC Europe. Brussels, Belgium. fe O

7 For 2006, export quotas were established only for IR.
Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14)

When export data from range States are compared against CITES caviar export quotas, it appears that in
some years range States have exceeded their quotas (Annex 1) (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). Generally, for most
range States except for Azerbaijan, incidences of exceeding quotas have decreased after 2003 (Annex 1)
(UNEP-WCMC, 2008). The most significant incidences of a range State exceeding its quota occurred in
2006, when Kazakhstan exported 203 kg of A. ste/latus and 199 kg of Huso huso, when no quotas were
published that year for those species (Table 4, Annex 1) (UNEP-WCMC, 2008). No international trade is
permitted where no quota has been published for a CITES-listed sturgeon species, as in that case there is
no established quota against which to regulate trade.

In some cases, such as when Iran exceeded its quota for A. nudiventris by 83 kg in 2002, countries do not
use the entire export quota in the previous year for a species (in this case, 916 kg used out of a quota of
1000 kg for 2001), so it is possible that exports reported the following year could be a carry-over from the
previous year. However, in the cases of Kazakhstan exceeding its quota in 2006, carrying over quantities

from the previous year’s quota cannot explain the discrepancy as no quota was published in 2005.

By weight, however, the most significant occurrence of exceeding CITES caviar quotas occurred in 2001,
when Kazakhstan exceeded the quota for H. huso by 2936 kg (Table 5), which is also noted in UNEP-
WCMC, 2008. Since no export quotas were published in 2000, it is not possible that this is a case of

carrying over remaining quantities under the export quota from the previous year.

Table 5: Mass and percentage by which range State reported exports exceeded CITES caviar quota

kg % % kg % kg

Acipenser gueldenstaedtit

Year

2001 2002 2003 a 2005 2006

005] 21] 1952] 34 [= 0}
9

or
Abcipenser stellatus 04 oa |
Huso huso p20

Actpenser gueldenstaedtit : Pol Kol
Alcipenser nudiventris 3 . ik —

Acipenser stellatus

BE uso huso 2

oueldenstaedtit

Atpenser nudiventris
Acipenser stellatus
Huso huso

Acipenser schrenckit

Huso huso

“? = no data available

“n/a” = % of quota unavailable since quota not published, or zero quota, meaning that exports should not have
occurred in that year.

* = Data indicates that Azerbaijan exported caviar in 2006 when there was no allocated quota, although it should be
noted that the 1kg reported in trade was a seizure by the United States.

Note: Year prior to 2001 not included as CITES caviar quotas unavailable.

Source: Adapted from the CITES Trade Database and CITES website.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP!4)

fe ate ol

Value of the caviar trade

This section outlines the trends in reported import values for caviar from 1998-2007. The data source for
all figures and tables in this section is the external Trade Database from Eurostat, and “EU” refers to the
EU-27.

Figure 14 shows the reported value of imports that have been declared by the EU per year from 1998-
2007, including a breakdown of values from reported imports originating from outside the EU (extra-EU
trade), and reported imports originating from within the EU (intra-EU trade). In general, the reported
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 intra-EU import values overtaking extra-EU import values since 2005.

Fig. 14: Reported caviar import values into EU by year (EUR)

€ 70,000,000
€ 60,000,000
€ 50,000,000
€ 40,000,000

oO Extra-EU trade
o Intra-EU trade

€ 30,000,000 +

Value (EUR)

€ 20,000,000
€ 10,000,000

€0

Year

Source: Adapted from the Eurostat external Trade Database.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14)

Total quantity of reported EU imports of wild-sourced caviar (in tonnes), and reported EU import value
in EUR (excluding intra-EU trade) are used to calculate EUR/kg values from 1998-2007 in Table 6.
Percentage of global reported imports is also given for each year, which indicates that although a
decreasing trend in tonnes of caviar imported into the EU is evident, the EU has consistently imported

about half of all global reported imports of caviar by quantity.

Notably, 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 (Table 6).

Table 6: EU reported import quantity and declared EU import value by year,
excluding intra-EU trade (EUR), 1998-2007

Year| (W,t)_|_ imports | _EUR/kg |
1999 - = : 34 501 761
2002 e 53% €27510 611 € 474
2005 ml 5;
46%

€ 18 303 390 n/a

Note: EU values do not include See (CH).
Source: Adapted from the Eurostat external Trade Database and the CITES Trade Database.

*Values do not include intra-EU trade, and include W and C.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP!4)

Caviar seizures in the EU

The following tables and graphs illustrate reported caviar seizures in the EU from 1998-2006. All tables
and figures in this section are derived from caviar data taken from the EU-TWIX database. 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).

Table 7 shows that caviar seizures reported in the EU by mass were highest in 2000 with total seizures at 4
325 kg, and in 2003 at 1 373 kg.

Excluding where the country of origin was declared as “unknown” (which represents the vast majority of

seizures by weight at 6 640 kg), the main country of origin for caviar seizures in the EU from 1999-2007 is
the Russian Federation at 445 kg (Fig. 15). This is followed by Poland at 100 kg, and the Ukraine at 32 kg

(Fig. 15).

Source: Adapted from the EU-TWIX database.

Fig. 15: Seizures by country of origin, 1999-2007 (excluding “Unknown” = 6 640 kg)

500
450
400
350 +
300
250

Mass (kg)

Country of origin |

Source: Adapted from the EU-TWIX database.
Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14)

The three EU Member States which have had the highest weight of total seizures from 1999-2007 are the
Netherlands (3 073 kg), Poland (1 731 kg), and France (1 573 kg) (Fig. 16). However, the Member States
with the highest total number of seizure cases are France (186 cases), Germany (170 cases), and Austria

(82 cases) (Fig. 17).
Fig. 16: Total seizures by reporting country (kg), 1999-2007

Mass (kg)

Reporting country

Note: Reporting country as “Unknown” is a result of an EU-T'WIX reporting error.
Source: Adapted from the EU-TWIX database.

Briefing on the evolution of the caviar trade and range State implementation of CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP 14)

Fig. 17: Total number of seizures by reporting country, 1999-2007

200
180
160 +4
140
120 +>
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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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

) 0

899 ST
=

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

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

116€ HOCE ONZE

O18 78

301 Ul

SOOT
OZOL

OS6E

OSM]

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)

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.

The term ‘stock’ is regarded, for the purposes of this Resolution, to be synonymous with ‘population’.

Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14) — 1

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:

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

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:

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

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.

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

"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 <p frac wal veal bo He
- ee aa r ayqu ee eaten hide

% Bon
Srl “ ~ i a sO 4.) a

a4 7 ~ eo) in ii ’
(ie he a 7 ae > 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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~<CS*é‘“‘«~St:tC Rey peg

OCihie 1 at 9002/11 /6L MSs N uedef

SLipe we 668 900z/T1/80 M Al, W 81noquiaxn]

6'1zél 9F9GL 900z/60/S7 ML 7 8moquiaxn]

WOIL 190 900¢/60/2L. ML YB iqeiy tpnes

€8'F9LL OST O00c/GNicie a el { eiqery tpnes

€stlIL - 900¢/80/Zz Mo Seas I arode3urs,

€8'€LIL Tom 5 900¢/80/90 ML H arode8uis

€L€LLT ZE SSL 900¢/40/0E M Ll 99 Simoquiexny

Ivss6 3 =—Ss«dTZ'06 900¢/Z0/oL. = MOL gt Smoquiaxn],
[SUE Ne a ee Smoquiaxn]

$7'6E9 8t6rr = «900 /€0/F0 i ae a ae a = 8anoquiaxn7

06F == ole“ Nis00z/zo/zn il “Q 8moquiaxny sayemung (gq yuag) Ay «= (yINag) = "Fry" Woy

qeiy peru ueysyyezeyy s}iodxa-ay
Soyer y jueg awh

qery payug uejsyyezeyy =O} Odxa-ay
PL'6bCL S00¢ /ZL/€L M ii V ‘yA |, ueysyyezey Wodxg jeursuo

T2830], yUNoury anss] jo ayeq 93.m0g aso
aayeinuiny ul3sLIO
e ‘AOYIN J, WOIJ APIARD S17V]]9}S AaSHadIIY AOJ (,,g,,) WuIag WOdxa-ay “fF aTqeL

PL 6PCL 9007/10/0€ M L

SHOdxea-a1 UO Saye qeiy payup Aq papaaoxa AqJuare

asnquyvq Av1007. DNOM-dANN ay} uryqia spiusad amavs fo Suryovsy puv saisads Ag aviavd ui apuay, D7 Jo sishjouy

eae of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar
atabase

3. Acipenser gueldenstaedtii

EC-reported imports of Acipenser gueldenstaedtii have been variable over the period 1998-
2006 (Figure 9). Imports were primarily from wild sources until 2005, but in 2006, the trade
involved predominately captive bred specimens (sources C and F).

‘Wild mCapti
50000 - i aptive (C & F)

40000 +

30000

20000

Quantity Imported (kg)

10000 +

aan

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 9. EC-Reported imports of Acipenser gueldenstaedtii caviar from wild and captive (Source
‘C’ and ‘F’) sources, 1998-2006

There were six years in which exporter and/or importer data show that range States
exceeded quotas for wild A.gueldenstaetii during 1998-2006 (Table 5, highlighted in blue).
Range States exporting A. gueldenstaetii from shared stocks of the Caspian Sea (Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan and Iran) collectively reported exceeding their quotas by 4127 kg during the
period 1998-2007. Importers reported a comparable quantity of 4085 kg over quota levels. In
2005, Azerbaijan exceeded their quota by 1952kg; the EC collectively imported the entire
years’ quota plus an additional 745kg of Acipenser gueldenstaedtii caviar. Kazakhstan
reported no exports for 2005 (as for all species), yet importers recorded 811kg caviar
imported above the quota limit of 3100kg for this country; the EC was a significant importer,
reporting imports of 3070kg. Also, as discussed infra, the 52000 kg joint quota set by Iran in
2000 for A. gueldenstaetii and A. persicus was exceeded according to importer data (53087 kg),
but not according to exporter data.

In accordance with the requirements of Conf. Res. 12.7 (Rev. CoP14), no quotas were
published for Acipenser gueldenstaetii range States in 2006, but quotas for both Azerbaijan
and Kazakhstan were published for 2007. Both Parties have appeared to adhere to quotas set
for 2007 (Annex B), based on trade reported by importers and recorded within the Caviar
Database.

Analysis of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar
Database

Table 5. Incidences of range States exceeding their export quotas (blue highlight) for Acipenser
gueldenstaedtii, as reported by the exporters and importers, 1998-2007.
Exceeded Exceeded Importer

by by data exceeds EC reported

QUOTA Export Import exporter importer Exporter direct
Country __Year _(kg) _ data (kg) data(kg) __(kg) (kg) ____data__ imports (kg)
Romania 75 1998 se N/R 38905 ae eo ZL eee,
Iran 1998 N/R __54005.6 5894.2 SES)
Bulgaria 2000 N/R 254 3.0
*Tran 2000 _ *52000 ——:15186.9 17588.28 _ 2401.38 5832.95
Kazakhstan 2001 _3200__—_-3837.8 32240 __—6978 aaa
tran 2002 2100 2363.7__-2535.9 263.7 435.9 1721 1175.6
Kazakhstan 2002 4860 5150.5 3260.5 eMmey
Azerbaijan 2004 3780 4783.1 5016.2 1008.1 12362 —_—-233.1_——«a2819.0
Bulpariawene2OCSE | MOR Git... ek 20 oh OO
Azerbaijan 2005 3780. ~——_—5732.35357.7___—«1952.3 io (ne 3)
Kazakhstan 2005 3100, STD 811.2 3911.2 3070.0
TOTALS 4127.3 4085.0

N/R denotes a quota was not required

*In 2000, Iran has a combined quota of 52000 for A.persicus and Acipenser gueldenstaetit. 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. gueldenstaedti
(17588.28kg) exceeded the combined export quota by 1087 kg.

Analysis of re-export permits for Acipenser gueldenstaedtii revealed one apparent irregularity,
a re-export from Switzerland, as previously discussed under A. stellatus.

ae of EC Trade in Caviar by Species and tracking of caviar permits within the UNEP-WCMC Caviar
atabase

4. Huso huso

EC-reported imports over the period 1998-2006 have been almost entirely from wild sources
(Figure 10). Collectively, the Caspian Sea range States of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Iran
reported exporting 6161 kg of caviar from the species Huso huso in excess of the combined
export quota quantities published for the period 1998-2006 (Table 6). According to importer
reported data, the quotas were exceeded by 6778 kg representing the most significant
incidence of quota non-compliance for all species included in this analysis.

i Wild ™ Captive

10000 +
8000 +

ave

~ 6000 4

no}

E 4000 4

2 2000 4

=} 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.

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.

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

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.

€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

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

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.

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

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 (<tk‘i‘éidkSCti‘;.O!WOU€«dL:COCOC;C;*#CSRAT] Qe POT
'ZVS60 an G0 OMe S007 //Z0/ SO an nan Tn se OBO
ee86 =: 900 SGi0z/0/ G0 ene een u Se aeoc
2086 ~=—s«'09 “900¢/20/Z0 Ad Ril pad wT ESSE
“Zse-—C«SE 300z/90/0e L ~ i ts. 2S 2 Pers
ZV;1e OG © 8007/50) Fea =o x KemIon
[060 eC OM ie AQ00c/ O0/ cm een ge NN © 2 SPR
wee EO 8002/90/F2 A L - WN ——_adtoyy Jo aJGnday
18st = 880 emaghiyo ge wb | Sat P — RUTYD ‘uorsay
aanenstunupy yeads
‘Buoy BUOTY
€6 LZ 68'€ g00z/90/EL = Al at > 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

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.

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.

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

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}

ro} 200 +

= 100 |

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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).

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. <www.iucnredlist.org>. 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.

351 8€07
3¥ LE°SEL

pepaesxq Junoury
peyodxa-a1 [230

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]

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

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“‘<i‘éCLO/Z/MECSSCOCM iT n= ae ees ake 7 dour]

6907 6907 ~~ £o/zt/z-L OM [ee 5 : —uredg = pueyiazyimg = (y) ueltequezy puepiaz}yiMs
wioyy s}i0dxa-ay]

podxg [eurs1iQ

uvlteqiozy

7S'98E Z0/z1/¢0 M iT Vv PUP]IIZ}IMG

giayoduy Zriayodwy

# yuna

asoding

anss] Joajeq a.1n0s

[230 (34

aayeynuNny yuNoury
OUND DT UL
syiodxa-a1 uo

pueyiazyimg Aq papaaoxa Ajjuaredde ‘puryiazjimg 0} uelreqiazy wor payiodxa AyqeurSr10 xeraeo 114 pavysuapjan8 sasuadiay roy ,,V,, WII ywodxy "7 a1quL

asnqujuq 4v10v> 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

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

€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

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

*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

‘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

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 <corcser te OOZT 8661 nyouaayas sasuadioy
61977 3002
F — i a. . SS itz S ””~—~—~—”—:: AH
EE oe nt ae 000FT g00z
WNG59770 noe i O8cPL a F007
Vac ai Le O0zZE . €00Z
1ZS'7606 i : 02087 eS 700C a,
TeCLsisa se (rs 5 = eer O0 8
8826617 Be score J OGIE = 5 a Sa |
SUEZecie a a crocerc 0000% a 6661
Tiss — © Src << ine sa. eae ljpavjsuapjans sasuadioy

uoHeIapay ULISSNy

asuqujug 4u1avD DWOM-dINN aif} unyyia sqiusad aviava fo Suiyov.y puv saisads fig aviavD u1 apusy, dq fo sishuuy

(8002)
8y0F pur (G00Z) smUIJa}s 4asuadiay 105 3408 (B00Z) BI6L9Z PUR (GOO) MpPavIspjanS sasuadioy 105 84Q0ZI ‘(Ayred Sq L[D-UOU) uRIsTUaUPZIN |, 107 seyonb sapnppuy,

002 007
002 7
009 Scie
See LOL 008 7) 007
OLDE Dates ae Se ee. = Se, COU
688'6671 0081 Z00Z
Sar a ann ee eae tee re ar
€8F' S87 106 IZIZ o0ce 0002
gg er iN me
96 6Z0€ 7S 6F07 000¢ 2 866 osm OSn]

2 Ses | _ 9tsle j ; woe. a. ° = R66 snounup osnpy
OOT G00z Snulayyna dasuadiy
i <i - a as || nEn eS
oosE Z007
0008 G00z

asnquynq Av1av>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
<z0e ; zLEe 9002
ZE'€667 Zsistz~ : Cae © ow eee Cs
ele ce LLSZ F002
6£'6021 Ve oO recone Ly
7S z8S 0 7007
98°895 “FeSIF a tee ~~ 1002
89 ec : 6661
E Cae Op Soe e aa a COR snuvjuoiusupay dasuadioy

(34) VLONO

$9}e}S payuy

asuquyyq AVIOVD DJINDM-dINN ayy urygi syuusad aviavo fo Suryou.4 puv saisads fig aviavD 1m apy, D7 Jo sishjpuy

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "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"

See other formats