WORLD TRADE IN CROCODILIAN SKINS, 1997-1999 Prepared under contract to the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre John Caldwell June 2001 AIN al MEF blank page Ce | a Contents TN ERO CHO eee I harchus cankancoae steer ce ee oe ta ab eea a aaeeaaeadduniuotsealaaeductess toe eesteaas 1 AVE CCE 0 CS sisis Seat ea receetel ng casas Bes cede ree ere See Ee Ee EE SU ROMER Me. coed Ri caenascanes 1 MGimita tom SiOf ata LN cccssccceccccotecte ce anareteaete carta ee sateen benenaasaeeuaataretaenineceronctnasaeeceetonseotectesassezees 1 SSPE LES 28 C CO MUM ES erent ceetees eter enemas rete een mere cnrecmeen an nce an cn eacnsme resacattrsssutrentneteeteaomsetrertatenseases Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile Crocodylus cataphractus African Sharp-nosed Crocodile Crocodylus johnsoni Australian Freshwater Crocodile Crocodylus moreletii Morelet's Crocodile Crocodylus niloticus Nile Crocodiles 28 -.c03, cvesssccsecaccecssstassassssesonsesoasnsersosevsonsoccececscceceuscvossecees Crocodylus novaeguineae New Guinea Crocodile Crocodylus porosus Saltwater Crocodile Crocodylus rhom bifer Cuban Crocodile...... Crocodylus siamensis Siamese Crocodile ................. Crocodylus siamensis/porosus Crocodile Hybrid ee ecccccccccccccccscsccceors Osteolaemus tetraspis West African Dwarf Crocodile.,,................scsccscsssescescsesssssessecessacesceceees ABT Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator ,,.............cscsccsccsscssssscsesssesssssecsossacecsscsncsessecsenses 11 Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Spectacled Caiman. ,,................sccscscscsssscsesscsevesssseecessesseersesseess 14 Caiman crocodilus fuscus Brow n Caiman. ,,,.,........c.cccsssscsssssssscsesessscsssscscsesseseseesseseceeseeseesceneeees 14 Caiman yacare Yacaré OthenS Wecies rere srcsr cence reeves ashes sence teestnancasenstancartectsutessoctascadcsstecunsatecesessuassscesseetersecsaaseastare Mirae vim Dive Amin als eee ree test ces acsesstes hoe test ee sea acttesea cesesecsnsesastucsascatecsssonnschoeeesteezesuaeatesccscneseiecornctecs 18 rade in) other, by-products Seen s.cseeee eee tecesesnaneesetertcresscessesersatsst coesassarsccaces conse ctacecaractanoectecccaseccavatesterses 22 Mnfractions Of CITES 222. cc ccs rset een aaa eee Sarat cae sasta vans Cescostostesscanuiwiese couksacteasecssubteseascacansctseseaceasss 23 Discussion and recommen Cations ,,....,...........sscsccscscescscecscsecsssssccocececeocnsecsocecscsscescessscscersscsnscnseseseseosessees 25 Table 1. CITES annual reports for 1997-1999 available for amalysis..,.............sssscssssssssessesssrscesersnsasseses 2 Table 2. Reported trade in Crocodylus niloticus skims, 1996-1999 0... .sssssssssssnssscssseeesncenencenensscseenones 8 Table 3. Reported trade in Crocodylus novaeguineae SKinS, 1996-1999 ,.....essesssssssesssnsareneneseensoeseoes 9 Table 4. Reported trade in Crocodylus porosus Skins, 1997-1999 0... .esssssssesssesesrensscecscececesssssensesoees 10 Table 5. Exports of Alligator mississippiensis rep orted by USA 1986-1999 .......ssessssessssssssesseresessees 11 Table 6. Reported trade in Caiman crocodilus fuscus Skins, 1994-1999 _._...ssssssssssssncsscnsesssssesenenees 14 Table 7. Reported trade in Caiman yacare Skins, 1990-1999 ,. oo. sssesssssssssseseessssessescacecsesecteeeenes 17 Table 8. Seizures of Crocodilians from the TIGERS database .................scssssssssensenseesensenseencenssnsasesenes 23 Table 9. Reported trade in crocodilian skins 1995-1999 ....... .ssssssecscsssssssseneecsnsessssnsseensenssnsessnsseensenes 25 Figure 1. Australian exports of Crocodylus johnsont............sssssssesvessecsssssessscsessnseenscnsensensensencensenessness 5 Figure 2. Exports of Crocodylus porosus from the major producers 1992-1999... .ccccccccccocscssseennces 10 Figure 3. Gross exports of A. mississip piensis skins from the United States of America LOS 6219.99 rete eee eenseenoeemaren tanta nasuntasehssatsassesteatearessnsesssssttieesesenessesecrestvocessesustsntensenctactucnsares 12 Figure 4. Major importers of American alligator skins 1990-1999 ooo sssssssssesssscsssssnsescenenssees 13 Figure 5. Reported source of American alligator skins 1990-1999 0 tessssescesssesscececssssesecenseses 13 Figure 6. Exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus skins from Venezuela 1983-1999 |... cccccceee 14 Figure 7. Exports of Caiman crocodilus fuscus from Colombia 1990-1999 ......ccccsssssssssescsccccersece 15 Figure 8. Major direct importers of Caiman crocodilus fuscus skins from Colombia 199 0-19.99 eae eiareame a eee east tan este cnaenattacea tne sesteatouccussarencenescacentcecccateaesessecscacesestsascarerseertensereetteTe 16 Figure 9. Other major importers of Colombian Caiman crocodilus fuscus skins 1991- 1999 16 PITTI eo Introduction The data used in this report have been obtained from the CITES Trade Database which UNEP-WCMC maintains on behalf of the CITES Secretariat, with additional data provided by the Crocodile Farmers Association of Zimbabwe. WCWMC has previously produced seven reports for the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study that examined the international trade in crocodilian skins from 1980 to 1998. The present report is intended to update these reports by analysis of information for the years 1997 to 1999. It also attempts to identify problem areas and to recommend, where possible, workable solutions. As in the IACTS report for 2000, this report presents information on trade levels in both classic skins (alligators and true crocodiles) and caimans. Methods This report is based on an analysis of the annual reports submitted by the Parties to CITES for all years up to 1999. A list of annual reports for 1997-1999 that had been received at UNEP-WCMC at the time of writing is given in Table 1. In order to be comparable with previous IACTS reports, all trade in whole skins and sides of crocodilian species has been analyzed. Two sides are considered to be equivalent to one skin. Trade reported in units of weight, area, length or sub-units of skins such as 'tails' has been mainly excluded. Wherever possible, data reported by the producer countries have been used in preference to that reported by importing countries as discrepancies in the manner of reporting, or the time lag between export and import, may lead to double-counting and thus to an overestimation of trade volume. However where producer countries have failed to submit annual report data on exports of crocodilians, importer’s data have been used. As with the previous reports covering the years 1995-1998, re-export trade has not been included in the estimation of annual production. Limitations of data Although the deadline for submission of CITES annual reports is the 31° of October of the year following that in which the trade took place, continued failure of countries to submit their reports in a timely fashion remains the greatest single obstacle in conducting trade analyses. This was highlighted in a report produced by WCMC and presented to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, held in Gigiri, Kenya, in April 2000 as an annex to the Secretariat’s report on national reports as required under Article VIII, paragraph 7(a), of the Convention. In response to that document, the Parties to CITES decided that trade should be suspended in CITES- listed species with those Parties that had, without adequate justification, failed to report for three consecutive years within the deadline established in Resolution Conf. 11.17. As a result, several Parties provided their missing annual reports and in addition, UNEP-WCMC was granted access to export permits sent by Parties to the CITES Secretariat for confirmation of their validity. As noted in previous [ACTS reports, a further problem with annual reports is the basis on which they are compiled. CITES Notification to the Parties No. 1999/85 states that “As far as possible, the data in the report should record the actual trade that took place, i.e. the quantity of specimens that entered or left the country. If it is not possible to report the actual exports and re-exports, the data on such trade should come from each permit and certificate issued. The report should state clearly whether the data used for the records of imports and exports/re-exports are based on permits/certificates issued or on actual trade.” However, reporting simply on the basis of permits issued may lead to considerable overestimates of trade volume as permits are frequently issued for quantities in excess of those actually traded and indeed, some of the permits may not even be used. The majority of Parties still fail to provide any details concerning the basis on which their annual reports are compiled. All annual reports for the years up to 1999 should have been submitted by 31 October 2000 but, at the time of writing (June 2001), several reports that should contain important crocodilian trade data have still not been submitted. These include Guyana (most of 1999), Israel (1997, 1998 and 1999), Madagascar (1999), Malawi (1997 and 1998), Suriname (1997 and 1998), Thailand (1998 and 1999), Uganda (1997, 1998 and 1999) and Zambia (1997) amongst the producer countries, and Canada (1998 and 1999) and Japan (1998 and 1999) amongst the major consumers. The potential effect of such omissions has been commented upon during the analysis. Table 1. CITES annual reports for 1997-1999 available for analysis Country 1997 Algeria Argentina Australia Austria Bahamas Barbados Belgium Belarus Belize Benin Bermuda Bolivia [ Botswana Brazil British Virgin Islands | Brunei Darussalam * *| * * w*) #] lH] He] He] Oe i * *)/ #] HLH] KH] KH] oH] RH] OR] * *| %#| Hl] #] KR] HR] HL RL es * * * * * | i z * * * * * otek * Colombia | = 2 Congo se Costa Rica = fe iS Cote d’Ivoire * * * Cuba * # : me Sane re Czech Republic es = = Democratic Republic of ? * E Congo Denmark ie a Hg | | Dominican Republic 33 s id Ecuador x Country 1997 1998 Egypt El Salvador Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands France ee) H) Hl] HL HY) French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland CUE E RN EEEEEEEE * * Guadeloupe Guatemala Guinea Guyana Honduras Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Iran Ireland (non-Party) Ital Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya ERE EEEREEL Latvia Liechtenstein Luxembourg ‘& TRE T EEE EC ECERRREE Macao Madagascar Malawi “|: Malaysia Mali Malta Martinique Mauritius Mexico ee E E ERIE sc] * *| *] * UPON Sa MATE Fas Monaco Mongolia Namibia Morocco ae Nepal Netherlands we) #) #] ¥) *] HI] * ie ak EEEEEE part = partial report Country 1997 New Caledonia | New Zealand Nicaragua Nigeria Norway *| *#) *] *l *] * Pakistan a [ Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Republic of Korea el] *) #) RH] Hl He] Réunion Romania Russian Federation * Senegal Seychelles =o Sierra Leone [ Singapore Slovakia South Africa Spain * %) %] KH] KL KH] H] He] He] RK] *) *#) *l *] *] *) Oo a cl cl A *| * — —— [ Sri Lanka Sudan | Suriname Sweden Switzerland Tanzania CECE REEL +: Thailand Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turks and Caicos Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania Uruguay United States of America Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam Zambia | Zimbabwe Accuracy of the data is another limitation of CITES annual reports. For example, during the compilation of the IACTS 2000 report it was discovered that many alligator skins were reported as live animals in the 1996 and 1997 annual reports of the United States of America and thus led to an underestimate of skin exports. Similarly, reporting, by the same country, of flanks, tails and skin pieces as whole skins could lead to a drastic overestimate of trade volume. In addition, the annual reports of Zimbabwe record significantly different trade volumes to those reported by the Crocodile Farmers Association of that country. Species accounts Crocodylus acutus American Crocodile There has been no reported trade in Crocodylus acutus since 1989. Crocodylus cataphractus African Sharp-nosed Crocodile The only recently reported transaction involving Crocodylus cataphractus was a seizure in 1998 reported by the United States of America, of two skins of unknown origin, imported from Egypt. Crocodylus johnsoni Australian Freshwater Crocodile Figure 1. Australian exports of Crocodylus johnsoni 3000 2500 2000 }- Quantity —*C. johnsoni 1500 1000 500 As shown in Figure 1, exports of this species from Australia increased from around 1000 skins between 1987 and 1991, then increased sharply to 3255 in 1993. Exports remained high in 1994 and 1995 but have since fallen sharply. Australia reported exporting less than 50 skins in 1999. Crocodylus moreletii Morelet's Crocodile In 1997, Mexico reported exporting 70 skins to France, 44 skins to Italy and 30 skins to Panama, plus one each to Brazil and Switzerland. For 1998, reported exports were 166 skins to France and 27 to Hong Kong but in 1999 only two skins were exported. Of the 30 skins exported to Panama in 1997, 20 were re- imported that same year and the remainder in 1998 (see also the section on meat). Crocodylus niloticus Nile Crocodile Nile crocodile skins are reported as whole skins, belly skins, back skins, hornbacks, horn strips, etc., all of which may be reported by the importer as whole skins. This leads to some difficulties in interpreting the data however for the purposes of this report, bellies, skins and hornbacks have been treated as representing entire skins Exporters 1. Range States Botswana exported 332 skins to Singapore and 5 skins to Zimbabwe in 1997, all from captive-bred animals. No commercial exports of skins were reported in 1998 or 1999, the only trade being in live animals. Ethiopia has not reported exports of skins since 1995 when 2005 skins of ranched animals were reported as an export to Singapore. Guinea has not reported exporting skins since 1991 nor have their been any reported imports from that country. Spain reported seizing 100 skins from Guinea in 1995. Kenya reported exporting a total of 1445 belly skins to France, Italy and Singapore in 1997. Of these 120 were reported as being from wild specimens and the remainder from ranched animals. In 1998 Kenya reported exporting 400 belly skins (200 ranched, 200 captive-bred) and 200 back skins (captive- bred) to France. France reported importing 400 skins from captive-bred animals and it seems likely that only 400 animals were involved in these exports. In 1999 Kenya reported exporting a total of 3350 skins of which 550 went to Colombia, 1250 to France, 1000 to Singapore and 550 to the United States of America. Reported imports were fewer and it is possible that the quantities reported by Kenya included both backskins and bellies. Madagascar reported exporting 5464 skins in 1997 and 6520 in 1998, the main importers being France and Singapore in 1997 and France and Italy in 1998. No annual report has been received from Madagascar for 1999 and the reports of France and Italy show imports of 4302 skins from that country. This may be an underestimate as exports had been increasing by around 1000 skins each year since 1995. All of the exports reported by Madagascar in 1997 were of ranched or captive-bred animals, however the total for 1998 included 2263 skins of wild origin. Tunisia reported importing 400 skins of captive-bred animals in 1998 but these were not reported by Madagascar. Malawi has not submitted reports for 1997 or 1998 but data from France, Germany and Japan indicate imports of 600 skins in 1997 and from France of 200 skins in 1998. Japan has not reported for that year so the real quantity may be higher. In 1999 Malawi reported exporting 170 skins to France and the importer confirmed this. The imports reported by France and Germany in 1997 were of ranched animals but the source of all skins in 1998 and 1999 was given as wild. Mozambique reported exporting 1430 skins (730 ranched, 700 wild) to Singapore in 1997 and 648 skins to Singapore and 162 to Zimbabwe in 1998, all ranched. In 1999 Mozambique reported exporting 585 skins (403 ranched, 182 wild) to Singapore in 1999. It should be noted that Singapore reported higher quantities in both 1998 and 1999 and it is possible that both hornbacks and bellyskins are being treated as whole skins. Namibia reported exporting 120 skins in 1997, 53 in 1998 and 115 in 1999 all to South Africa. All were reported to be from captive-bred stock. South Africa reported exports of 13,322 skins in 1997, 8,863 in 1998 and 26,926 in 1999. The majority of the skins were reported to be from captive-bred stock, with only 578 apparently ranched and 60 wild caught over the three-year period. The only trade involving Sudan since 1992 was the seizure of one skin reported by the United States of America in 1996 Tanzania reported exporting 275 skins to France in 1997, 777 in 1998 and 827 in 1999, all of wild origin. No imports of skins from Uganda have been reported since 1994. Zambia did not submit a report for 1997 but Singapore reported importing 7302 back skins, 7052 belly skins and 4326 simply as skins and South Africa reported importing a further 600 skins. If the backskins are disregarded it seems likely that a total of around 11978 skins was exported. The Zambian annual reports for 1998 and 1999 show exports of 9,250 skins, mostly to Mexico and Singapore in 1998 and 19,702 in 1999, again mostly to Singapore with smaller quantities going to Brazil, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and the United States of America. Unfortunately Zambia does not report the source of the skins but importers records suggest most are from ranching operations. In their 1997 report to CITES, Zimbabwe reported exporting 52,386 skins, which compares well with the Crocodile Farmers Association of Zimbabwe (CFAZ) figure of 52,829 pieces comprising 6,373 backskins, 789 crust, 5765 hornbacks and 39,902 wet salted belly skins. If however the backskins are discounted, the CITES annual report data overestimates the number of animals involved by around 14 per cent. Data for 1998 are less comparable and suggest possible under-reporting in the CITES annual report. The CFAZ reported exporting 40,720 skins (20 crust, 202 finished skins, 12,564 hornbacks and 27,934 wet-salted belly skins) while the Zimbabwe annual report shows a total export of 21,887 skins. Data from importers falls somewhere in between these two figures at around 33,000 skins. In 1999, the Zimbabwe annual report records that 94,408 skins were exported while CFAZ data suggests the figure was nearer 63,000. Importers’ data for 1999 gives a total of 65,000 however no data are available from Japan for either 1998 or 1999. The reason for the great divergence in the figures supplied by CFAZ and the CITES Management Authority (M.A.) is not known but it would seem possible that the M.A. may have included some 1998 data in the 1999 report. This might arise from a time lag between issuance of the export permit and the date of actual export. In the table below, data on skin production provided by CFAZ, excluding the number of backskins, have been used. 2. Other countries Brazil reported exporting 1 skin in 1997, 2,092 in 1998 and 720 in 1999, mostly to France, Mexico and the United States of America. These transactions are confirmed by the annual report data provided by the importing countries. Italy reported importing 944 skins from Israel in 1996 and France reported importing 552 in 1999. Mauritius reported exporting small numbers of skins to Zimbabwe between 1995 and 1998 amounting to just under 200 skins in all. No report has been received from Mauritius for 1999 but the data available from earlier years suggests there is some small level of production there. Table 2. Reported trade in Crocodylus niloticus skins, 1996-1999 ated Pie hi. aa = ae 70 les OL uae ea rrear ie ER c Key: * Figure derived from import data @ Data supplied by CFAZ 70 85 115 26,892 120,279 Crocodylus novaeguineae New Guinea Crocodile Table 3 shows the total number of skins of this species exported by the main producers of this species, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, between 1996 and 1999. In the IACTS report of 2000 it was noted that although the Management Authority of Papua New Guinea had provided general crocodilian data, they had consistently failed to include statistics of their crocodilian skin trade in their annual reports to CITES. However in April 2001, maybe in response to the possibility of trade prohibitions under CITES Resolution Conf. 11.17, a detailed breakdown of the trade data for 1997 to 1999 was provided. In 1997, 87 per cent of exports were reported to be from wild- collected animals. This fell to 64 per cent in 1998 and increased to 77 per cent in 1999. As had been surmised in the IACTS report 2000, the majority of the skins were exported to Japan. The moratorium imposed by Indonesia in January 1994 on the export of Crocodylus novaeguineae was lifted in 1997. In that year Indonesia reported the export of 100 skins of ranched animals to Japan and in 1998 a total of 8506 skins, also from ranched stock, was exported mainly to Japan and Singapore. Exports in 1999 were slightly lower but the source and destinations remained the same. Table 3. Reported trade in Crocodylus novaeguineae skins, 1996-1999 1996 1997 1998 1999 Papua New Guinea 14,234 32,912 16,985 15,617 14,234 33,012 25,491 Crocodylus porosus Saltwater Crocodile Figure 2 shows the estimated quantities of skins exported from the major producing countries, Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, between 1992 and 1999. Indonesia imposed a moratorium on exports of crocodilian skins in 1994 that was lifted in 1997. Australia reported exports of 8,792 skins in 1997, a decrease over the previous year. The quantity increased to almost 10,000 in 1998 but fell again to 5,038 in 1999.The reported destinations were mainly France, Japan and Singapore When the moratorium in Indonesia was lifted in 1997, 150 skins from ranched animals were exported to Japan. Exports of a further 3,141 skins, mostly to Singapore, were reported in 1998 and a further 1,087 to Japan and Singapore in 1999. The source of the skins in 1998 was reported as ‘F’ (animals born in captivity [F1 or subsequent generations] that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in CITES Resolution Conf. 10.16) while those in i999 were reported to be from ranching operations. Malaysia reports exporting approximately 120 skins annually to Singapore from a registered captive- breeding operation. Papua New Guinea reported exporting 8,771 skins in 1997, 10,225 in 1998 and 9,396 in 1999, mostly to Japan. The proportion of skins reported as coming from captive-breeding operations increased from 66 percent in 1997 to 75 per cent in 1998 and to 79 per cent in 1999 Figure 2. Exports of Crocodylus porosus from the major producers 1992-1999 14000 er 8 Ee eee 12000 10000 8000 ry —— — Australia , |—#- Indonesia | |-a-Papua New Guinea| ) | | Quantity 6000 4000 2000 + Year Singapore reported commercial exports of 296 skins from registered captive-breeding operations in 1997, 211 in 1998 and 60 in 1999. Thailand reported exporting 440 skins to Japan in 1997, all being from captive-breeding operations. The quantity exported subsequently cannot be estimated as neither Thailand nor Japan, the main importer, has submitted annual reports for those years. Table 4. Reported trade in Crocodylus porosus skins, 1997-1999 oh ae, ? Papua New Guinea 8,771 10,255 9,396 Co mie eee ee 18,376 23,823 15,701 Crocodylus rhombifer Cuban Crocodile Cuba reported exporting two skins to United Kingdom in 1998 from a registered captive-breeding operation. No further trade has been reported for this species. Crocodylus siamensis Siamese Crocodile The only exporter of this species is Thailand who reported exports of 5,452 skins in 1997, mostly to Japan. Neither of these countries has submitted a report for 1998 or 1999 so production can not be estimated for these years. The only reported imports were of one skin by the Czech Republic and five by Hong Kong in 1998 and 104 by Hong Kong and 397 by Singapore in 1999. Crocodylus siamensis/porosus Crocodile Hybrid No international trade in skins of this hybrid species has been reported. Osteolaemus tetraspis West African Dwarf Crocodile There is no international trade in skins of this species, however seizures of small numbers of manufactured items, mainly emanating from Nigeria, are reported annually. Unfortunately very few of these seizures are reported to species level so it is impossible to estimate the scale of the problem, or even if this species is involved. Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator As in the IACTS reports for 1995-1998, only gross export data reported by the United States of America have been used as it has been demonstrated previously that using data reported by importing countries can lead to a significant overestimate of trade volume. A thorough analysis was conducted of trade records concerning exports of live animals between 1996 and 1998 and any transactions that could be confirmed as involving skins rather than live animals were amended in the database. Figure 3 shows reported exports between 1986 and 1999 and indicates a steady increase from around 30,000 skins in 1986 to 210,000 in 1994. Exports then appear to have declined to around 160,000 in 1996 and have then increased steadily to a peak of almost 240,000 in 1999. Table 5. Exports of Alligator mississippiensis reported by USA 1986-1999 i 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 31,235 45,177 50,303 76,963 | 120,419} 128,447] 155,264 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 192.286 | 210,236] 185,929} 163,936] 198,649} 206,620} 239,519 Figure 3. Gross exports of A. mississippiensis skins from the United States of America 1986-1999 300000 -——————_____---$ $$ $$ 250000 = me — ‘ : iat 200000 | - — ————— 150000 Quantity 100000 50000 Year The principal markets for American alligator skins between 1990 and 1999 are shown in Figure 4 and indicates that France was the primary destination over that period. Indeed the sharp decrease in overall exports that occurred in 1996, and the increase thereafter, can be seen to be the result of the trade with France. Italian imports have fluctuated between 20,000 and 50,000 over the ten-year period and may possibly be set to increase further. Imports by Singapore have been gradually increasing since 1995 while the Japanese market, which represented the destination of 18 per cent of the skins in 1992 now represents a mere 1.4 per cent. Mexico, which used to import less than 1,000 a year up until 1997 now represents over 7 per cent of the market. The IACTS report for 1995-1997 noted that the proportion of captive-bred animals involved in the trade had regularly fluctuated between 60 per cent and 80 per cent and this was also the case in 1998 and 1999 where the proportion of skins from reportedly captive-bred animals was 66 per cent and 70 per cent respectively. These data are shown in Figure 5. However it is known that the actual proportion of captive-bred material entering trade from Florida is no more than five per cent, and even less from operations in Louisiana. This suggests that the compilers of the CITES annual report of the United States of America are using the code ‘C’ for ranched animals rather than the more correct ‘R’. This code was first used in the annual report of 1998 and in 1999 accounted for less than three per cent of the skins. A further complication introduced in 1999 is the use of the code ‘F’ (defined earlier) which accounts for seven per cent of the exports. Twenty per cent of the skins exported in 1999 were reported to be of wild origin. Figure 4. Major importers of American alligator skins 1990-1999 160000 -—_-_---__— 140000 == 120000 + 100000 + —+— Singapore | 80000 Quantity 60000 40000 20000 Year 140000 120000 100000 Quantity : 60000 40000 = 20000 -* i Lo \ 0 —. $$ 2 2 * ee H Year This species is also bred in captivity in Israel. France reported the import of 437 skins in 1996, 210 in 1997, 401 in 1998 and a further 425 skins in 1999. No other importers have recorded trade from this source. Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Spectacled Caiman The history of exports of this taxon from South and Central America was described in the IACTS 2000 report which noted that Venezuela was currently the main supplier, exporting over 90 per cent of the C. crocodilus crocodilus skins entering trade, most of them being from wild-caught animals. The report also noted that the volume of trade has declined from a peak of over 400,000 in 1985 to less than 30,000 in 1998. This trend continued through 1999 with total exports amounting to fewer than 16,500 skins. The quantity of skins exported annually from Venezuela is shown in Figure x below. Figure 6. Exports of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus skins from Venezuela 1983-1999 40000 qr 140000 120000 100000 }— 80000 +- Quantity It is firmly believed that this decline has resulted from the very high number of skins of C. crocodilus fuscus being exported by Colombia. Caiman crocodilus fuscus Brown Caiman As with C. crocodilus crocodilus, the history of the trade in skins of C. crocodilus fuscus was well documented in the [ACTS 2000 report which noted that since 1990 the major producer of this species had been Colombia. Exports of this taxon had increased from around 70,000 skins in 1990 to over 760,000 in 1995. Exports declined to only 450,000 in 1997 but increased again to almost 670,000 the following year and again to over 765,000 in 1999. Details of the countries reportedly exporting this species from 1994 to 1999 are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Reported trade in Caiman crocodilus fuscus skins, 1994-1999 Exporter | _ Heat 1995 1996 | 1997 1998 | _1999 Brazil 0 0 0 0 | 3] 0 Colombia 514,792 | 764,358 | 646,832 | 451,307 | 669,269 | 767,529 | Costa Rica 0 0 0 0] 0 Cuba 0 302 0 El Salvador 0 0 0 Guatemala 62 0 0 0 Honduras 0 2,000 5,656 22,000 18,140 0 Nicaragua 8,441 ; 4,328 3,795 1,246 | 3,927 | Total 523,295 | 770,609 | 656,585 | 475,053 | 691,384 | 767,779 Since the IACTS report 2000 was produced, annual report data for the period 1996 to 2000 has been received from Honduras that shows exports of 45,796 skins and re-exports of 7,486 skins between 1996 and 1998. It is unclear from the annual reports whether the exports reported are indeed true exports or re-exports of skins that have been reported incorrectly. In any event, Honduras reported no trade in this species in either 1999 or 2000. Colombia exports crocodilian hides in various formats, as flanks, as whole skins and as tails. More recently exports of ‘barrigas’ have been reported. It is believed these are belly skins and in the analysis they have been included with whole skins. Details of the quantities of each format exported annually between 1990 and 1999 are shown in Figure 7. Figure 7. Exports of Caiman crocodilus fuscus from Colombia 1990-1999 Quantity 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 H — *-— flanks | |——skins -- &--tails + Year The export of whole skins increased steadily until 1996, decreased in 1997 but has increased steadily since then. Exports of flanks has averaged around 200,000 each year since 1992 but peaked dramatically in 1995 at just over 456,000. Export of tails shows no dramatic fluctuations. The major importing countries of Colombia’s caiman skin production have been traditionally Italy, Japan and France. However Singapore has been the major destination since 1994 and exports to Thailand have been increasing steadily throughout the 1990s. Thailand has been the second most important destination since 1997. It should be noted that very few flanks are exported to Thailand. Of interest perhaps is the appearance of Germany as an importer in 1998 and 1999. At the present time it is not known whether these imports are for manufacture in Germany or are simply being imported by France and Italy via another European Union member State. It is also interesting to note that the peak of Italian imports coincided with the peak export of flanks. Figure 8. Major direct importers of Caiman crocodilus fuscus skins from Colombia 1990-1999 400000 7—--—----- —---———-—- ----- -—---__- - | 350000 — — =| 300000 250000 \ |—-= France > \ Germany | < 200000 | —tA— Italy é | |--€--Japan | —%*— Singapore | | —®—Thailand | SaaS 150000 100000 50000 N.B. in this instance the number of skins traded as flanks has been converted to whole skins. Although Singapore is the major destination, most of the skins are re-exported, particularly to China and the Republic of Korea. Details of this trade is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. Other major importers of Colombian Caiman crocodilus fuscus skins 1991-1999 160000 4---------- ~-—------—___-—_-----~ ---- 140000 120000 100000 i } { | |—*—China | |:+ 2+ - Republic of Korea 80000 Quantity 60000 40000 +- 20000 +- Caiman yacare Yacaré Table 7 shows the fluctuations in exports of C. yacare skins from the major producing countries between 1990 and 1999. Trade data for earlier years was presented in the [ACTS report 2000. Regarding exports from Bolivia, the 1990 trade was reported as an import by Malta, which is not known to be a major importer of crocodilian skins. The trade in 1997 was reported by both the importer, Italy (12,922 flanks and 9,500 skins), and the exporter (30,052 flanks). The trade in 1998 was only reported by Italy (3,514 flanks) and that in 1999 only by Bolivia (35,000 flanks to Switzerland) although it is possible that the import of these shipments did not occur until 2000. It should be noted that Bolivia planned to establish an export quota for the year 2000 but failed to inform the CITES Secretariat of the quantity of skins that would be involved. Subsequently Bolivia established an export quota of 50,000 skins for 2001, many more than have been exported in recent years. Paraguay has made regular exports of wild-collected skins since 1994 when 10,932 flanks were exported to Japan. Since then, Paraguay has reported exporting 12,620 skins and 5,173 flanks to Italy and 2,000 skins to Mexico in 1995, 1,450 flanks to Mexico in 1996, 1,006 flanks to Spain in 1997 and 8,890 flanks, also to Spain, in 1998. Paraguay established experimental quotas of 5,000 and 10,000 skins in 1997 and 1998 respectively but none in 1999. No exports were recorded in the 1999 annual report to CITES submitted by Paraguay and, at the time of writing, no importing countries have reported trade in Yacaré involving Paraguay for that year. Paraguay established a quota of 10,000 skins for the year 2000. Exports from captive-breeding operations in Brazil began in 1989 and, apart from 1993 and 1994 when over 50,500 stockpiled skins were exported, mostly to Panama, only a few hundred skins have been exported annually since then. Of the stockpile that went to Panama, the majority of the skins were re- exported to Mexico in 1996 and 1997. Table 7. Reported trade in Caiman yacare skins, 1990-1999 [Exporter | 1990 1991 _| 1992 | 1993 1994 Bolivia 7457 0 0 [o. Brazil 265 30 233 7034 Paraguay 0 0 0 3 = | 7722 30 | 233 7037 Exporter 1995 1996 1997 1998 Bolivia 0 0 15961 1757 17500 Brazil 366 536 4691 295 615 Paraguay 725 503 4445 0 Total 21155 | 6497 [18115 Other Species There has been no reported exports from origin countries in either 1998 or 1999 of skins of the following species: Crocodilus intermedius Orinoco Crocodile, Crocodilus palustris Mugger Crocodile, Alligator sinensis Chinese Alligator, Caiman latirostris Broad-nosed Caiman, Melanosuchus niger Black Caiman, Paleosuchus palpebrosus Dwarf Caiman, P. trigonatus Schneider's Smooth-fronted Caiman, Gavialis gangeticus Gharial or Tomistoma schlegelii False Gharial. The United States of America reported importing two pre-Convention skins of Paleosuchus palpebrosus from Panama in 1998. Trade in Live Animals As noted in the IACTS report of 2000, the commercial export of live crocodilians outside of their range States poses a potential threat to the natural biological diversity of the importing countries. The effect these alien animals may have on native populations of crocodilians is inestimable should they establish breeding populations, a serious possibility given suitable environmental conditions and habitat. It was also noted that the continued growth of the crocodilian farming industry would probably mean that such exports would continue for the time being. Live crocodilians are traded for many reasons. Enthusiasts popularly keep young animals as personal pets; circuses and zoos regularly exhibit such creatures, farms and ranches import animals to supplement their gene pool and some are imported in order to strengthen wild populations. This variety of use, and the limited number of possible purpose codes used in CITES annual reports, means that some conclusions drawn from analysis of CITES data are only tentative. For example, the purpose code “T’ which indicates a commercial transaction would apply equally if the animals were destined for either the pet trade or the farming industry. Below we consider the reported trade on a species by species basis. Alligator mississippiensis A close study of the annual reports of importing countries has shown that most of the exports of live alligators reported by the USA (to Singapore in 1996 and to Europe, Japan, Panama and Singapore in 1997) were shipments of skins that had been misreported. In 1981 the USA reported exporting 120 captive-bred animals to Israel, possibly for a crocodile farming operation. Interestingly, the USA reported importing 200 captive-bred individuals in 1986, possibly offspring from the previous export. Exports of large numbers from the USA to the United Kingdom have been reported in 1987 (800), 1993 (200) and 1994 (500) and it is thought these were probably embryos or hatchlings being used for scientific purposes. The USA has reported regular exports of live animals to Japan, Netherlands and Spain and it is thought that most of these were for the pet industry. In 1996 50 live captive-bred animals were exported from USA to China, possibly as breeding stock, and shipments of 1,000 animals in 1995, 1,500 in 1996 and 417 in 1999 have been reported to Mexico, again possibly for breeding purposes. Alligator sinensis Since 1997 there have been three exports totalling 83 captive-bred animals from China to Denmark. Although the ultimate purpose of the imports is unknown, it would appear that at least 63 of these animals were re-exported by Denmark to other European Community Member States, particularly Germany. Caiman crocodilus The United States of America reported importing 2,475 from Netherlands Antilles in 1980 but there have been no other reports of exports from this source. Brazil exported small numbers of Caiman yacare in 1995, 1996 and 1998 but none subsequently. The United States of America reported importing 23,894 C. crocodilus from Colombia in 1981 but this appears to be exceptional. Colombia reported exporting 2,000 C. crocodilus fuscus to Singapore in 1990 and 3,5000 to the United States of America in 1990, 2,000 in 1997 and 600 in 1998. The United States of America reported importing several thousand annually from El Salvador between 1982 and 1985 but none have been reported subsequently apart from three sent to a zoo in Canada in 1998. Guatemala reported exporting 4,000 captive-bred C. crocodilus fuscus to the United States of America between 1997 and 1999. Guyana exports several thousand wild-collected animals each year for the pet industry. The main destinations are Europe, Japan and North America. The United States of America reported importing 2,610 from Honduras in 1996 and 300 from Nicaragua in 1998. Panama has never reported exporting live animals although Germany reported importing small numbers in 1978 and 1979. The United States of America reported importing 50,588 in 1979 however this seems rather unlikely. It is more probable that skins were involved. In 1998 the Netherlands reported seizing 42, and the Russian Federation 29, from Peru. No imports have been reported from Paraguay since 1980 when Germany and Switzerland imported a total of 103. Suriname regularly exports several hundred wild-caught animals for the pet industry. As is the case with Guyana, the main destinations are Europe, Japan and North America. Trinidad and Tobago reported exporting 56 animals in 1998 but the usual annual level of export is less than ten. Several thousand animals are exported annually from Venezuela, most of which are destined for the North American pet industry. The peak year was 1993 when Venezuela reported exporting 23,340 to the United States of America but a total of 33,280 were reported as exports to the same destination in the course of the next three years. The number fell to 3,450 in 1997 and rose slightly to 4,200 in 1998. In 1999 the figure was only eight but it is interesting that this decline has been matched by exports of 5,500 in 1998 and 11,000 in 1999 to Taiwan, Republic of China. There have also been exports to Thailand that may have been destined for captive-breeding operations. These were 1,240 in 1994, 2,000 in 1996, 1,250 in 1997 and 6,500 in 1999. Crocodilus johnsoni There are very few animals in trade but Germany imported six wild specimens from Australia in 1990 for zoo purposes. Germany has subsequently reported exporting four to Switzerland in 1995 and five to the USA in 1997, all reported as captive-bred, so it appears the original animals are being bred successfully. Crocodilus moreletii Cuba reported importing two captive-bred animals from Mexico in both 1997 and 1998 for zoo purposes. In 1999 Spain reported importing a further 20 such animals from Mexico, ten of which were apparently destined for a zoo and the remaining ten were simply reported as a commercial import. Crocodilus niloticus As noted in the IACTS report for 2000, most of the trade in live specimens of this species has been between range States, particularly Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. In addition to the trade reported in IACTS 2000, 1999 saw the reported import by South Africa of 3,827 animals from Botswana (only 1,427 reported by the exporter) and 10,000 ranched animals reported as an export to Zimbabwe by Mozambique. To the export of seven crocodiles from South Africa to Israel in 1997 and another eight in 1998 can be added a further 900 ranched animals from Kenya in 1999. It would seem probable that these were destined for a farming operation. Namibia exported 266 animals to Spain in 1997 with the purpose listed as ‘breeding’, and South Africa exported at least 300 animals, half of which originated in Namibia, to Spain in 1998. In 1999 Spain reported importing 62 animals from South Africa, and Kenya reported exporting seven captive-bred animals to Spain listing the purpose of the trade as ‘breeding’. China reported importing 480 crocodiles from South Africa in 1997, a further 3,028 in 1998 and 406 in 1999. It is thought these were for breeding stock, as probably was that of the 591 animals reported as an export to Singapore by Mozambique. Crocodylus novaeguineae 20 This species is infrequently reported in trade but Indonesia reported the export of 126 ranched animals to Japan in 1997. Crocodylus palustris Sri Lanka reported exporting three captive-bred animals to India for zoo purposes in 1999. Crocodylus porosus China reported importing 160 animals from Malaysia in 1993 although it is probable that the shipment occurred in 1994 when Malaysia reported exporting 100 to China. This apparent anomaly arises as a result of the species being listed on CITES Appendix I, for which an import permit is required to be issued before the export permit. Thus the export permit for these animals may have been issued in the year following that of the issuance and reporting of the import permit. Similarly China reported importing 150 animals from Malaysia in 1995 but the export was reported by Malaysia in 1996. In 1997 China reported importing a further 150 animals from Malaysia plus a further 22 in 1998. There was no reported trade between these countries in 1999. Other significant imports reported by China are of 20 from Singapore in 1996 and 170 in 1997. In 1998 Singapore reported exporting 180 animals to China whereas the importing country reported 180 from Thailand in that year. Imports by China in 1999 showed 3,500 captive-bred animals from Thailand for breeding purposes and a further 90 animals of unknown source from Myanmar. As noted in IACTS 2000 the only other transaction of possible significance is an import reported in 1997 by Indonesia of 100 from Singapore, for breeding purposes. Crocodylus rhombifer Sweden reported importing 16 animals from Cuba in 1985 and a further 10 in 1986. Since that time Sweden has regularly reported the export of small numbers of captive-bred animals. Since Cuba reported exporting 150 captive-bred animals to Viet Nam for breeding purposes in 1997 the only other reported export from the range State has been two to a zoo in Spain. Crocodylus siamensis Imports of this species by China from Thailand show a remarkable progression from 2,128 in 1997 and 5,078 in 1998 to 28,692 in 1999. A further 200 were reported by China with no exporting country listed but it seems likely that this was also Thailand. No annual report for animal species has been received from Thailand for either 1998 or 1999 and an e-mail requesting data on crocodilian exports has been sent to the Thai Department of Fisheries. No response has been received to date (15 June 2001). Osteolaemus tetraspis Very small numbers of this species are exchanged annually between zoos and in 1999 South Africa exported 16 captive-bred animals to Spain. Paleosuchus palpebrosus Exports of up to 500 animals were imported annually, particularly by Germany and the USA, from Guyana up until 1989. Exports then ceased for several years and began again in 1995. Since that time the numbers have gradually increased towards their former levels but the range of importing countries has expanded to include other European countries, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico and the Philippines. The animals all appear to be for the pet industry. 21 Paleosuchus trigonatus As with P. palpebrosus, there was trade in small numbers from Guyana up to 1989 and again since 1995. Quantities appear to be less than 300 animals annually. Trade in other by-products a. Meat A major by-product of the crocodilian skin industry is meat, however this commodity is not always reported well. For example, many of the trade records reported by the United States of America in the early 1990’s lack an accompanying unit of measurement so it is not possible to determine if the data refer to cans, cartons, kilogrammes or pounds. These records have been omitted in this analysis so it is possible that the totals, especially for the earlier years, are underestimates. Figure x shows total world exports as reported in CITES annual reports from 1988 to 1999 and indicates that generally the quantity varied between 250 and 500 tonnes annually. However during that period there have been major fluctuations in the countries and species involved. Up until 1992 the major supplier was the United States of America exporting Alligator mississippiensis meat, particularly to Taiwan, Republic of China. Since 1993 however, exports of Crocodylus niloticus from South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe have increased steadily from less than two tonnes in 1992 to nearly 300 tonnes in 1999. Figure y compares the exports from North America with those of Africa. Other species involved include C. novaeguinae and C. porosus from Papua New Guinea and although the two species are not always differentiated in the data, it is estimated that exports have averaged in the region of 60 tonnes annually since 1993, the major importer being Australia. Meat of C. novaeguineae was exported in small quantities (less than 10 tonnes annually) by Indonesia between 1992 and 1994 and Australia has been exporting a gradually increasing quantity of meat of C. porosus since 1992. This peaked at just over 23 tonnes in 1998 but fell back to 14 tonnes in 1999. Venezuela exported irregular quantities of meat of Caiman crocodilus crocodilus from 1989 until 1997 with a peak of nearly 45 tonnes in 1993, and Colombia exported small quantities of C. crocodilus fuscus between 1994 and 1997. There has been no reported trade in meat from these taxa subsequently. Of interest in recent years is trade in two Appendix-I species, namely the imports reported by China of 45 tonnes and 19 tonnes of meat of Crocodylus siamensis from Thailand in 1998 and 1999 respectively, and the export reported by Mexico in 1999 of 3.5 tonnes of C. moreletii to Japan. As stated earlier, meat from Papua New Guinea has mainly been imported by Australia however Australia’s annual report to CITES shows very little being re-exported. The reason for this is currently unknown to the author. Traditional markets for crocodilian meat are Far Eastern countries, particularly China, Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan, Republic of China. The United States of America reported exporting at least 1000 tonnes of alligator meat to the latter country between 1990 and 1994. Exports to Taiwan have been few since then. Japanese imports peaked at over 110 tonnes in 1994 but appear to have decreased subsequently, however it should be noted that the Japanese reports for 1998 and 1999 were not available for analysis. Chinese imports appear to have begun in 1993 when nearly 23 tonnes was involved, and have increased to 69 tonnes and 71 tonnes in 1998 and 1999 respectively, the main 22 species being Crocodylus niloticus and C. siamensis. Hong Kong trade also appears to have begun in 1993 and has increased to over 185 tonnes in 1999. The main species involved however were C. niloticus and A. mississippiensis. European imports of crocodilian meat were around eight tonnes in 1990 and 1991, increased to over 20 tonnes in 1992 and 1993, were over 30 tonnes for each of 1994 and 1995 and have increased to between 60 and 70 tonnes a year since then. b. Teeth Teeth and, to a much lesser extent, claws of crocodilians are used as jewellery and as decoration on garments such as hats. Some of this fashion may have been popularised by the ‘Crocedile Dundee’ films that featured such items. The main importing country for crocodilian teeth is Australia and imports of as many as 75,000 teeth in a single year (1994) have been reported. The major supplier of these goods is Papua New Guinea although small quantities were reported by Australia from South Africa (3,100 teeth of Crocodylus niloticus) in 1996 and the United States of America (1,616 teeth of Alligator mississippiensis) in 1999. The main species involved is C. porosus and the majority of the teeth are from ranched or captive-bred individuals. Infractions of CITES Table 8 was provided by the CITES Secretariat and is an output from the TIGERS enforcement database. It summarises all available information on seizures of crocodilians from August 1997 to February 2001. Most of the reported seizures involve small numbers of manufactured items, however there are a number of live animals from South America destined for Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation. There appears to be a large number of seizures reported by Austria and Poland but this simply reflects the proficiency of the Customs officers in those countries at intercepting returning tourists. The most significant entry perhaps, is the seizure of an unknown quantity of skins in Zimbabwe. This was reported in the SADC Bulletin as follows: “Zimbabwe Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management officials recently confirmed that they found a Bulawayo-based Indonesian company with hundreds of crocodile skins, which allegedly entered into the country illegally. A Zimbabwean daily newspaper, the Herald, reported that the skins were in containers labelled "hippo skins". Complex procedures must be followed when importing wildlife products. Sources alleged that senior Zimbabwe Customs Department officials, together with those from the Department of National Parks might have been heavily involved in the scam.” Recent information (J. Hutton, pers comm) indicates that the skins had actually been imported legally for tanning. Table 8. Seizures of Crocodilians from the TIGERS database 23 Date q| Species Specimens | Country of | Country of Country aw | Export/Re- | import or discovery export destination 23/08/1997 | Palaeosuchus trigonatus 18 live [Pera U.S.A. ZI Peru | 25/091 1997 | Palacosuchus palpebrosus | 4 live Peru Czech Rep. Netherlands | Caiman crocodilus 11 live 03/04/1998 | Caiman latirostris 4 live Peru Russian Fed. Russian Fed. 20/02/1997 | Crocodylus siamensis 1 key rin Thailand Italy Ital 17/03/1997 | Osteolaemus tetraspis 5 handbags | Nigeria Italy | Italy 28/09/1998 | Crocodylidae spp. < 100 pairs | U.S.A. Italy Italy shoes Sm a 18/01/1998 | Crocodylidae spp. 2 handbags | Nigeria Italy Ital 24/03/1998 | Crocodylidae spp. <5 Mali Italy handbags 20/01/1998 | Crocodylidae spp. 1 whole Benin Italy Italy skin 31/08/1998 | Caiman crocodilus 9 live Peru Russian Fed. Russian Fed. Caiman latirostris 13 live —t 22/04/1999 | Crocodylus porosus 1 product Viet Nam Austria Austria 21/07/1999 lus porosus 9 live 28/07/1999 | Crocodylidae spp. 1 live U.S.A Austria 21/08/1999 | Alligator mississippiensis | 2 skulls U.S.A Austria Austria 16/09/1999 | Caiman crocodilus 1 product Egypt Austria Austria 10/09/1999 | Crocodylus acutus 22 products Slovakia Austria 14/09/1999 Alligator mississippiensis 2 skulls Austria 23/12/1999 Alligator mississippiensis 1 skull 16/09/1999 Crocodylus niloticus 4 live Crocodylus niloticus 5 handbags Austria Austria Austria Crocodylus niloticus 12 live Jordan 17/06/1998 01/12/1998 02/09/1999 Crocodylus niloticus South Africa South Africa 1 head Sweden 1 product Nigeria 6 prs shoes 18/12/1999 | Crocodylus niloticus Austria Austria 05/01/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. 1 skin U.S.A. Austria Austria 07/01/2000 | Crocodylus niloticus 4 handbags | Nigeria Poland Poland 09/01/2000 Crocodylus niloticus 1 skin Mauritius 12/01/2000 Caiman crocodilus 1 pr shoes 1 handbag 1 purse Thailand Austria Poland Austria Poland | 12/01/2000 Caiman crocodilus l prshoes | Thailand Poland Poland 1 wallet ys 1 purse i 12/01/2000 | Crocodylus siamensis 1 stuffed Thailand Poland Poland animal 02/02/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. 1 skin United Austria Austria Kingdom 02/02/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. South Africa | Austria | Austria 13/02/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. 1 skin Mauritius Austria Austria | 07/03/2000 Palaeosuchus palpebrosus _| Live Unknown U.S.A. U.S.A. 24 (unknown quantity) 9 products | Nigeria Italy Italy | 12/04/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. ee a aan 10/05/2000 _| Caiman crocodilus fuscus _| 6 products | Germany Poland Poland poise Crocodylidae spp 1 product South Africa | Austria Austria 29/05/2000 | Crocodylidae spp 2 products | Switzerland | Poland Poland 30/05/2000 | Crocodilus porosus 5 products | Australia Austria Austria 19/07/2000 | Caiman yacare 15/08/2000 | Osteolaemus tetraspis 30/08/2000 | Crocodylus niloticus 27/09/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. _ 23/10/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. 16/11/2000 | Crocodylus niloticus 02/12/2000 | Caiman crocodilus 21/12/2000 | Crocodylidae spp. Austria Poland Poland Poland Austria Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland 1 skull | Argentina 1 stuffed Nigeria | handbag _| Germany 1 hatband Australia 2 handbags | Ghana 1 head South Africa 1 stuffed Canada 7 skulls Papua New Guinea Germany Unknown a i Poland 1 belt Skins (unknown quantity) 1 stuffed animal Poland Zimbabwe 28/12/2000 | Alligator mississippiensis 03/01/2001 | Crocodylidae spp. Zimbabwe Russian Federation 16/02/2001 Germany Crocodylus rhombifer It should be noted that although information on seizures are supposed to be recorded in CITES annual reports, the relevant authorities involved, i.e. the Customs officers making the seizures and the CITES Management Authorities producing the annual reports seldom liaise closely. In addition the data recorded by Customs rarely allows the goods to be identified at the species level. Discussion and recommendations The overall volume of world trade in classic crocodilian skins and caimans from 1995 to 1999 is summarised in Table 9 and based, wherever possible, on country of export data. It has been noted in previous IACTS reports that the absence of CITES annual reports from key exporting and importing countries has led to a high degree of uncertainty, however the situation has improved greatly over the past two years. For example the measures passed at the | ie meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES have resulted in the appearance of much of the missing data from producer countries and access to export permits held by the CITES Secretariat have allowed better verification of those data. It is very unfortunate that for one species, Crocodylus siamensis, the main producer and importer country reports are missing, namely those from Thailand and Japan Exports of some of the classic skins, particularly A/ligator mississippiensis and Crocodylus niloticus, appear to be increasing steadily but the situation with other taxa, e.g. C. johnsoni, C. novaeguineae and C. porosus is far less stable. As noted above, the situation regarding trade in C. siamensis is unknown but is thought to be increasing. Trade in caiman skins, particularly Caiman crocodilus fuscus from Colombia, is increasing at the expense of wild-collected skins of C. crocodilus crocodilus from Venezuela. Overall the total number of skins entering international trade in 1999 appears to have been in excess of 1,200,000 and suggests a strong recovery from the slump in trade in 1996 and 1997. Table 9. Reported trade in crocodilian skins 1995-1999 1995 1996 Alligator mississippiensis | 185,929] 163,936 239,519 Crocodylus acutus | 0 0 C. cataphractus of 0 C. intermedius 0 0 0 0 0 leieinson 3,132 1,641 194 309 45 C. moreletii 0 20 146 120* 2 C. niloticus 84,987 67,528 81,987 69,715] 120,279 C. novaeguineae 19,556 14,234 33,012 23,491 22,191 C. palustris 0 0 0 0 0 C. porosus a i 18,376 C. rhombifer C. siamensis C. siamensis/porosus Gavialis gangeticus 0 0 Tomistoma schlegelii 0 0 subtotal 319,383] 270,236] 337,816] 324,086) 398,238 —— Caiman crocodilus crocodilus Caiman crocodilus fuscus "Sees EE 48,390 26,346 770,609} 656,585 Caiman yacare subtotal Grand total 1,155,954 |954,428 |871,068 {1,057,547 {1,200,573 * = data deficient We have noted in earlier [ACTS reports that there are serious problems in reaching realistic estimates of trade levels because some countries still report on the basis of permits issued rather than actual trade. This situation has not improved and it is still the case that most CITES Parties fail to even report the basis on which their reports are compiled. We have previously noted that overestimates caused by exports from one year being reported as imports the following year can be largely overcome by only taking exporters’ data into account, however in the absence of annual reports from producer countries the only recourse is to use importers’ data. To date only about ten Parties have adopted the recommended permit number format from CITES Resolution Conf. 10.2 that would eliminate the problem as the permit number identifies the year of permit issuance. However it has already been noticed that although countries may be using the standard permit number format, they do not always appear in that format in annual reports, e.g. the year code may be missed out. Standardisation of the terminology used to describe parts of crocodilian skins has been recommended in the past as this may reduce the danger of double-counting and subsequent overestimation of trade levels. We continue to recommend this standardisation. We stress that manufactured products should be 26 reported simply as LPL (large leather product) or LPS (small leather product) and are concerned that some countries, notably the Republic of Korea, may be recording such items as whole skins. Similarly, CITES Parties should pay greater attention to reporting the source of the material. It has already been noted above, in the section on Alligator mississippiensis, that ranched animals are being reported as ones bred in captivity. The number of possible source codes is perhaps too many as it includes C = captive-bred, D = Appendix-I species bred in captivity for commercial purposes, F = animals born in captivity that do not fulfill the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16, O = pre-Convention material, R = specimens originating in a ranching operation, U = unknown and I = seized material. For crocodilians it may be possible, at least for analytical purposes, to combine C, D and F to cover farming operations, and O and U to cover unknown source. The problem, as we noted above, is the confusion that can arise when ranched material is reported as captive-bred. It is has been noted that some caiman producer countries are now establishing export quotas, e.g. Bolivia has an export quota of 50,000 skins of Caiman yacare in 2001 and it is thought that Paraguay may be considering similar measures. If these quotas are established purely for captive-bred specimens the conservation value for the country’s wild population of crocodilians is doubtful. Simple trade data becomes available from these operations but there is no information on the effect that they have on wild populations. It is possible that pressure on wild populations may be reduced as hunting pressure lessens but on the other hand, purely captive breeding operations may allow a loophole that leads to laundering of wild-hunted skins. We recommend that countries allowing large-scale farming operations should establish strict monitoring and management programmes for their wild crocodilian populations. The following recommendations made in the [ACTS report of 2000 remain valid: It is recommended that the CITES Secretariat and the Chairman of the Standing Committee should contact Parties in June of each year to remind them of their obligations under Article XIII, paragraphs 6 and 7. UNEP-WCMC recommend that Parties adopt the recommendations of Resolution Conf. 10.2 concerning the format of permit numbers as soon as possible. UNEP-WCMC would recommend that wherever possible, Parties report the actual quantities of skins being traded. Acknowledgements The compiler would like to acknowledge Don Ashley, Jon Hutton and John Sellar for their input into this report. 27 aan Mae