World trade in Crocodilian skins, 1988-1989. Prepared as part of the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study

WORLD TRADE IN CROCODILIAN SKINS,
1988-1989

Prepared under contract
to the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study
by

RICHARD LUXMOORE

February 1992

Wildlife Trade Monitoring Unit
World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL

INTRODUCTION

Two previous reports for the International Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study
have examined the world trade in crocodilian skins from 1980 to 1987. The
present report is intended to analyse new information for 1988 and 1989,
retaining information from previous years for comparative purposes. Because
of the interaction between the trade in classic skins (alligators and true
crocodiles) and the caiman skin trade, it was decided to include data on the
latter, representing, as they do, the greater proportion of the world's
crocodilian skin trade.

METHODS

This report is based on an analysis of the annual reports submitted by the
Parties to CITES for the years 1988 and 1989. A list of annual reports
received at the time of writing is given in Table 1. Notable reports not
available were those of Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. In order to be
comparable with previous IACTS reports, all trade in whole skins and sides of
crocodilian species was analysed. One skin was taken to comprise two sides.
Trade reported in units of weight, area or length was excluded. Where the
number of skins reported by the importing country was different from the
number reported by the exporting country, the higher of the two quantities was
used. Gross exports from all countries were summed to show the gross world
trade. Net imports, taken as the positive difference between gross imports
and gross exports, were summed to give the net world trade. The quantity of
skins originating in the major source countries within the range of each
species was estimated by calculating net world trade for each reported country
of origin (or export, where no origin was declared). This was slightly
different from previous IACTS studies which used gross trade; however, many
countries re-export substantial quantities of skins and so the net trade was
considered to give a more reliable estimate of the total quantity of skins in
trade.

Another departure from previous studies was the inclusion of data for Caiman
crocodilus. The difficulties of calculating net trade in Caiman skins are
discussed in the relevant section of the report. Exports of manufactured
products (wallets, watchstraps, handbags, pairs of shoes, leather items and
garments) of this species from Europe were also analysed.

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

http://www.archive.org/details/worldtradeincroc88luxm

Table 1. CITES annual reports for 1988 and 1989 available in the database for

this analysis.

Country

Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Belgium
Bermuda
Bolivia
Botswana
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Is
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Gabon
Germany, FR
German DR
Ghana
Greece
Greenland
Guinea
Guyana
Hong Kong
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kenya
Liberia
Luxembourg

% * 4 4+ * * % % HF HF HF HF HF HF HF HF FF HF HK

*

+ 4 % % * * HF 4 HF HF HF HF HF FH

* + + + * * HF F * %* *

+ 4+ + * * ¥ * FF

*

Country

Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritius
Monaco
Morocco
Nepal
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Portugal
Senegal
Singapore
South Africa
Spain

Sri Lanka
St Lucia
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Tanzania
Togo
Trinidad & Tobago
Tunisia

UK

Uruguay

USA

USSR
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Zaire
Zambia
Zimbabwe

EEE HHH HH HHH HF HF HH HH HHH HH HH HK

* + * *

+ %

* *

*

* * %

*

Crocodylus acutus American crocodile

A total of only 60 skins of C. acutus were recorded in trade in 1988 and 1989,
of which 59 were reported as exports by Switzerland as pre-Convention stock
or originating in Argentina, a country outside the range of the species.

Table 2. Minimum world trade in Crocodylus acutus skins

(aa 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

Table 3. Minimum gross trade in Crocodylus acutus skins reported as exported
from or originating in countries in which the species occurs

So i a I a es Pe ee
vue: gl Dlby hele i a a ee
eS a a

Crocodylus cataphractus African Sharp-nosed or Slender-snouted Crocodile

Table 4. Minimum world trade in Crocodylus cataphractus skins

S| 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

uz679 | 2020| 59 | an | aaa | aasa| 570 |
‘es ae | I

Table 5. Minimum net trade in Crocodylus cataphractus skins reported as
exported from or originating in countries in which the species occurs

1983 | 1984 1985 1986 | 1987 | 1988] 1989
ase7| 2030| | | | aaa | 559

| Geis. cl eH ab hora Face pede aM el eee

Sierra
Leone
zaire |

Unknown

The population of C. cataphractus in Congo was transferred to Appendix II in
1987 subject to an annual quota of 600. Exports were reported as 1193 in 1988
and 559 in 1989. It thus seems that skins from the 1988 quota were not
exported until the following year. All were imported by France. The only
other skins noted were 11 from Nigeria, seized on entry into the USA in 1989.

a

am
ae
—

mae a

Sb Perven-qicn.

Rw lLdo

Eber i

tT

/

'

¥ Bao Ri BvI 3b ing
ame a O06 Yo ato,

i $02 niewse urs

AER easy pein

“ynbu0 + mie. 1

Crocodylus johnsoni Australian Freshwater Crocodile

Table 6. Minimum world trade in C. johnsoni skins

ee 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 | 1989

The first recent exports of skins of C. johnsoni were authorised in 1987,
after which they rose to a net figure of 1274 in 1988. The Australian annual
report for 1989 was not available for this analysis which probably explains
the low figure in that year. Almost all of the exports were to Japan in 1988.
One as yet unsolved mystery is the reported import to the USA of 608 skins of
C. johnsoni from Mali in 1987 and a further 34 skins in 1988 - both presumably
errors, but it is strange that they should have been repeated in successive
years.

Crocodylus moreletii Morelet's Crocodile
A total of 22 C. moreletii skins were reported in 1988 and 1989, almost all
as illegal imports to the USA from Mexico.

Crocodylus niloticus Nile Crocodile

Table 7. Minimum world trade in C. niloticus

Pots | agg | izes | 1986 igea | _1989
34879 6510 | 10533 | 19507] 23548] 31252] 45626
28983 6115 9378 | 18480] 22974] 27525} 40253

Minimum net trade in C. niloticus has risen from 6115 in 1984 to 40,253 in
1989 (Table 7). The majority of these derived from the ranching programme in
Zimbabwe but the other Appendix populations in African Countries accounted for
a further 31,772 skins (Table 8). The main Appendix I skins traded have been
from captive breeding operations in South Africa, whose output has risen to
nearly 4560 in 1989.

Appendix I imports have included 45 from Guinea Bissau, seized on entry to
Spain and 1843 from Mali reported to have been imported by France. There is
no explanation of why France should have permitted such an import.

Most of the Appendix II imports have been within the agreed quotas (Table 10)
but there were some notable exceptions. In 1989 France recorded the import
of 4542 skins from Madagascar, and Italy imported a further 376. As the total
quota for 1989 was 1000 skins, the EC countries reported imports of nearly
five times the permitted quantity. Imports from Malawi also exceeded the
quota, but by a smaller margin. The excess appears to have been due to the
import of 500 skins reported by South Africa but not by Malawi. Exports from
Tanzania exceeded the quota in 1988, but this may have been due to the
inclusion of some skins from the previous year's quota.

The main importing country was France which took over half of the skins, but
Japan was the second most important destination of skins in 1989. Most of the
remaining skins were imported to other European countries, notably Belgium,
Italy, Switzerland and Austria (Table 9).

2,
4 ao atrlo
MU wi 0s
Bisyleans .-
Pan o4s
Pages:
wrtHe 3%

aven

‘Table 8. Minimum net trade in C. niloticus skins reported as exported from
or originating in countries in which the species occurs.

ray
{o)

Appendix II populations

[Botswana |
ee
a ol
_ oe ee el
[Madagascar |
rr
Loi
=o
Boe |
i sa00. |
| 401 |

=e a es)
fare melies Be
oasoliee 0]
150
3610
572
3153
1724
3231
7925

a
ines 3
Ea eae
pe
feet mne|
a

3453
aes | |aedies
| as0| 2954
7217

Table 9. Net imports of C. niloticus skins to major importing countries

* net exporter in this year

Austria [es] ny) (eC |
Belgium So Ee) ee ae Eee
_ a ETE) [ETS a PE Eee
0 ee
Beecueny ee) esi aaelay sos] ae | |
apse | 2a
[south Africa | * |
cea emcume al msat eae Ced
eas a
Geena a
Enea)

Switzerland

Te, SB hetgotws azole sunkgolin «Oo ob e@ese sons mimeo, 9
SAVhePD ahioege wif cotdw 1 @etasivoo ni oo bei
: itn

ss POPES ape ose
puree GARE lebd

art 2

SON SR EL eo

Rat eee aa

GRO alo Lirgery
er manger te

eye hd Ve

4

‘em pater

\
'
wee mi rears ee a par

x

i ok

coo wiNAme aah ancien Brant Slane

+
i ‘

ee ne inn eats a

Boe 784 BOS

us: Ne ae SONU, SON aR inkl Jain |
| 3a | og os | | Te

yoamasens + icone — 7 nn eee at ieeenieniierae, on

foe — 4 mt

a Pa

Wee | Res re)
ne Los et

rr Be

- ealeinnes ead Sons ‘rote os skine dit ant} iW 2 2o ores

Oe a dats id ae

et EB

‘able 10. Export quotas for different populations of Crocodylus niloticus
‘ransferred to Appendix II under the special criteria set out in Resolutions

tonf. 5.21 and 7.14.

* ranching programme accepted W = Wild R = Ranched

Ea
fw | 150 ee!
Ea 4000 4000
fw | 1000] sooo] s7ea] roof | |
Ls fem | fee dt lal allot cat
fw | soo[ roo] oo] 700] + |

| | 200] 1000 | 2600 |
pean | Pa Ea
(NN ERIS
[w | sooo] sooo | sooo| sooo | soso
fw | 1000] 2000] 2000] 2000] 2000] 1000 |
Ea
Fee
feet

500

ES Se ee ee a
[2000] 2000] 2000 2000[ +{ +] +
(ama Se late al

|| 2350] 3600 | 6200 |

Crocodylus novaeguineae New Guinea Crocodile

Table 11. Minimum world trade in C. novaguineae skins

pts | aga] izes] ses | ise7| i920 | 1989

34983 | 34539] 49097| 43599 | 40830] 41725 | 47818
27352 | 29156] 43027| 33938| 37890] 34728 | 38235

Table 12. Minimum net trade in C. novaeguineae skins reported as exported
from or originating in countries in which the species occurs.

[mnaonesia | 6975] 7632 17332| saa] 1227| 10053 _1460 |
| ue |g agi el laentie JS el EL (aa Rea!
fenc | 29471 219e7| 27916| 20465] 32071
ene SE

¥
iss ay) : i s)
~ ; A | a) GoM ; oa
fh rier $meWATS 20% vssovp some Ot
umes sueradnertss etvane att ehew tibnegys of bea | a
ea A ; | Baton mit alcate “Ww betqoros omen 06k See
os Nes on , = ae aie
i, a

Hae I

THOTT
oT RORTESTTaL ATP

&
n
t>
}

J
Ai

> tine @eolud wen asenligenven ate «

— sponse <3 at ebsxs bisow cominin =
ay

oe me bes Lae ara ra Stabe | EBVOE i
at ie

t nine oa aD ind bias Spr simtn Ly =
7 Ae ab ‘eetsiavce al 6a Mbit

os pe 4
ie? “a a pees

Minimum net trade in skins of C. novaeguineae rose from 27,325 in 1983 to
38,325 in 1989. The majority of these skins were reported to have originated
in Papua New Guinea, with lesser quantities from Indonesia. The low quantity
from Indonesia in 1989 is probably because the Indonesian annual report was
unavailable for this analysis. Information from elsewhere (Anon. 1991)
suggests that permits were issued for the export of approximately 12,000
C. novaeguineae skins from Indonesia in 1989. The other factor which may have
contributed to low trade figures was the holding of a reservation by
Singapore. There have been reports of a substantial illegal trade in skins
from Irian Jaya to Singapore which does not appear in the statistics.
Singapore dropped its reservation for the species in 1990. Whereas previously
Japan had been the main destination of skins of this species, France was the
main importer in 1989.

Crocodylus porosus Saltwater Crocodile

Table 13. Minimum world trade in C. porosus skins.

| iaves] age] ros] i986] 1987] 1988 | 1989

e431| sos2| e183 | 7684| 11303 | 16526
5398 | _ 5358 10042 | _13902

Table 14. Minimum net trade in C. porosus skins reported as exported from or
originating in countries in which the species occurs.

atiebralia i |. | Moo | 198 | oi%an0 | 499 | 11324] s2508]
[Indonesia |_—345| 200] 1094] as] 949| 2670] 408: |
eerie, re pase | wg el leon eee] ene jensen] een ie oem] nemenmonl
| te Shili Samat pilpkew Crojodi le tlre and 411 werd]
ist be Np 7 Rd Tou fel ae Bie EERO le pot al
y thie alk saO0,loonteial|, oA00i|, 1450ine toon

2 6 POSE RRR |

Philippines

jo. dae Ler
Singapore
er a Re

Table 15. Export quotas for the Indonesian population of Crocodylus porosus
transferred to Appendix II under the special criteria set out in Resolutions
Conf. 5.21 and 7.14.

li, eaplep 1985 | 1986| 1987] 1988| 1989] 1990| 1991
Fe Te g(t al ela hi 3000
[ranchea | | | | 2000] 3000] S000

Minimum net trade in skins of C. porosus has increased from 5398 in 1983 to
13,902 in 1989. Skins from Papua New Guinea have fluctuated from 3910 to 7404
but those from Indonesia have increased from 200 in 1984 to 4081 in 1989
(Table 14). The country's population of this species was transferred to
Appendix II in 1985 under a quota system, the quotas being shown in Table 15.
Exports from Australia have also increased as the ranching programme has
started to produce skins. Singapore held a reservation on this species until
1989 and so did not report trade before then. It is believed that additional
skins have been illegally exported from Indonesia via Singapore. The majority
of the skins have been imported to Japan, but France was the next most
important destination (Table 16). The volume of the unreported trade is but

ve ontpd sei fe iu: wee : |
~tijonp Wel

ea Dapsd ie Ms ted yi ; Ome
(£ege . ‘

UpwawOS |
iL i g
eoqanians
a ‘tg Laz R
r 1h eegey

i poms = ae
f ii) F la
ay P Tn
ing A Aaipes> eta wbri
‘ D440: :
wa -
ag
5 ae ae S
—} 4

ovr an ide
q . Hf wv ari iee hori
a aphiciouc; visnuse ane
si Seeye a@icup « wehin ocr aie
a - 0 ti Oeis oved b.is soma
“4 a fen eae ntis aye tip Ogee ee
Ana 4 “ee $O3Hi obo tog: Jom SS Be
HS ae = ogee Wiispel il needs
i * 4 baal need even se
; , i side?) nokteniawe
Set et b

unknown was estimated to be 30,000 - 40,000 a year for both C. porosus and
C. novaeguineae combined in 1987 (Ashley, 1989). It is to be expected that
the withdrawal of reservations by Singapore will reduce the illegal trade.

Table 16. Net imports of C. porosus skins to major importing countries.
* Net exporter in this year

[isc eel mente mp ems a) care me
1346
[singapore | 2srf {| = | as] a |
[switzeriana| 2i6| 195| 305] as9|__10
[sec amo fe B23 te me sm se
[ice smog veal i yt i ame hot

Crocodylus siamensis Siamese Crocodile

8
*
10}

Table 17. Minimum world trade in C. siamensis skins

1984 1985 1986 1988 1989

Exports of C. siamensis from Thailand grew from O in 1983 to over 2000 in
1988. All are said to derive from the Samutprakan Crocodile Farm and all were
imported to Japan, with the exception of 400 in 1988 and 600 in 1989, imported
to Italy. Since Thailand has not submitted annual reports for 1988 and 1989,
all the trade was recorded by the importing countries. Output from the farm
was said to be 2220 and 2700 in these two years respectively (Youngprapakorn
an iitt., 1990).

Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator

Most skins of Alligator mississippiensis which enter world trade are exported
from the USA to Europe for tanning and are subsequently reimported to the USA.
Since neither of the usual measures of CITES trade (gross or net world trade)
give an accurate estimate of the total production of skins, it is better to
use gross exports from the USA. These are shown in Table 18 where it can be
seen that they have risen from 20,000 in 1983 to nearly 80,000 in 1989. They
originate mainly from Louisiana and Florida, from a combination of wild
harvest, ranching and captive breeding. An alligator farming industry has
recently become established in Texas and Georgia.

As in previous years, France and Italy have been the major destinations,
importing about 60-80% of the gross exports from the USA (Table 19). Many
skins are subsequently re-exported to the USA after tanning but the total
quantity of skins retained in France and Italy was 29,150 in 1988 and 43,041
in 1989. This represents over half the gross exports.

10

ae
j Mi
\ u "
'
|

ee Ok) 08 = 0
weet yin

5 Oy ee

‘V BHLAS Sis

!
L
|
alibeors ,
; bem
‘ ie i weap Bhat iact >!
; “5 ‘vs
; Aad AqQeo
; ; beszemive
; pa As sone! ot ,
oe oe eyes ou

Re i eu @36 >

ITA eeui-:s<r

Skhre iqaians
re OLA!

eee yo Py"
VEETIO 30 Reairenn

Ds

Re2q9 arid 4:

40% 80"

ee
Mies 92 Des kcny-

ness i

sAatet

Se

ow

i7OIeS oF
wit
vas 2%
ers 4
t overt
23
ust @

eae Sled) x00 2 sevieg Qs wie

Table 18. Exports of Alligator mississippiensis skins

piper enemy 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Gross US 20069 21519 20718 33278 45184 51838 77810
exports
Gross world 38997 32388 29467 43843 57458 66707 100492
trade
Net world 16913 12968 13228 23907 33078 38705 61590
trade

Table 19. Principal destinations of US exports of A. mississippiensis skins.
The percentage of gross US exports is shown in brackets.

pT esp | casey | case | ae | cee) | cae | aoe
PT cae) | casey | ere) | cs) | ary |e) | ae) |

Caiman crocodilus Spectacled Caiman

The calculation of trade in Caiman crocodilus skins is very much more
difficult than for other species of crocodilian because of the great variety
of methods of reporting. Trade may be reported in any one of three subspecies
and as either skins or sides. There are several instances where the same
trade has been recorded as "skins" by the exporter and "sides" by the importer
(or vice versa). Thus although the normal practice is to divide the number
of sides by two to obtain the number of skins, this cannot be relied on to
reflect the trade accurately. Total net trade calculated as above and
therefore subject to these limitations has varied from 0.3 to 1.5 million
between 1983 and 1989. Most of the trade in 1988 and 1989 is reported to have
originated in Venezuela, Guyana, Colombia and Paraguay (Table 20). All of
these countries except Paraguay have legal exports of skins and so the
majority of trade reported to CITES since 1988 appears to have been legal.
The Paraguayan skins were mostly re-exported from Argentina to Switzerland and
subsequently France.

Europe is the major destination of Caiman skins recorded in CITES annual
reports, Italy and France being the main importing countries (Table 21).
However, there is believed to be a large volume of trade which is not recorded
in these statistics. Pani (in prep., 1991) documented several instances where
skins of Caiman crocodilus have been intercepted on import to Italy with
inaccurate or forged documentation and believed that many more illegal
shipments entered the country undetected.

Brazil has prohibited all exports of wildlife since 1967 and yet there is
known to be much illegal hunting of caimans, particularly in the Pantanal in
the south of the country. Skins are exported by a variety of routes but a
large number have been intercepted in Paraguay. One large consignment was
trans-shipped off the coast of Uruguay and tracked to its destination in the
Far East in (Anon., 1988). Another shipment was intercepted in Belgium, en
route from Argentina to Italy with false export documents (Anon., 1989).
Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are also known to serve as an outlet for
Brazilian skins from the north of the continent, several hundred thousand
skins having recently been located in warehouses there (Menghi, pers. comm.).
Most of these clearly do not appear in the CITES statistics and alternative
means must be used to trace their eventual destination. Retail shops in

ala

aotia eienetantuaideiw sotaprllA Po s2unqee
L ge ; . ; Y SG 1. :
. b_eoes a Lites hot tet cp llisineg. weer an 28 ~ eae
ri A
MORE. ade a

Sh te esxprane 2b Pe Wine! Fontan, faqionn st M
aie ned mesa Bi Sppaee 2U. nenap to

HewleD bolsatoege «aul ie

MU MULAROSTES namiaS Ge obsess ho fm
heb ttiaumess Yo edizaqes iis ry a
Tae yom shh T .prtssoges F
AT .webie. ts outs
Si tal “enive” on bebsaaee se
et appaidin — F
“ipiacSAitc of). fies Pe |
¥ Bs panei ew
pd tn dimit ovals oF
anes ad? 1% Janke —. 0d
, Rar 2i0h 0 Soiree

eo ee ee Acnivots triieineen ice sted
eee ae is ie 3

tee) i _, Bebrrowe ia , ; x f ] a tobsend +090 a4 a
a. wt Riracges f Se pased con't

baw od doves Lest el

Table 20. Reported countries of origin of Caiman crocodilus skins derived
from CITES annual reports, 1983-1988.

origin 1985
Argentina 1200
Bolivia 171457

| 1200 |

| 171457 |
as ee See ee ee ee
rc | cea AOS Rana Ter ee a a (ee |e!
inne alate i, bared Mt ones | Saami
Colombia
cE | ETRE Lae

| 207644 |

yo 4035

| 489 |

a

El Salvador 207644
ears ae a aa a
pears arial ee cae ee

ea te tid ee ee

Guatemala | —|_ 126234] 3as6es| 26288 | 12851| 33341| 8587_

108408 64768

Haiti PEs a a eT a ee

sowie [exnrocs] [awe cel [Nieeeetl

| 64768 |
Ea
(xoemtnerv0
he Sie [eat eae ae
et teri ae ay
aman sara pas | (Beet [ip voe-e J
ie SE ko a I ieee
eee ee eae
(es sede] eh aes

al
863
(so aed 7

6

S. Africa

i

[switzerland | | __1076 |
————EE ES See ee el
Ein [trot [enon 55) bpd inf |
pertasn ad EES RS
[venezuela | | 3487] 125566 | 128095

28
85906 | 79398
1366406 | 1334548

aie ll ls
[cae es Se Samet
rr
ee
Ee Se

N
a)
e
ry)
lon
=
oO

1442868

12

: . * = q
hawb yen eriiae auitsoogst pein, to sigiyo 10. Bess snbOD peas Soapantt .
a ‘ RHGlCKERC: Ceyoages Deus Be

waren late
=

LROberh |) ACR. ) ypEese
AM ls ae me 1 tin pogo «hell

) See a Et eee
J \ Le
oo. —_ =

| ogbcs
sat

4

: T
: i
¥ ’ - . J rw
4 aN i t ,
me fh < 4 a -
a ’ tecear

- . oe _ 7 : —. ' a . au .
.) | et fetents peseoor | roccge

etl MEbR AReceot | vegz, | —t — ;

| cn
ll
|
— oe
Ss
ae

=e

[ie
7 4 o rs "7

Table 21. Minimum net imports of Caiman crocodilus skins to EC countries.

IMPORTER 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
ee sf eso | os |

ea og a fo
ee ee eee ee
[cermany. re [v8 | 220 | arco] em | aoe | | svono | ais |
Jeo ee ee
Real S26 Sie
Se ee
[sein
ST SEE
a a ea ee

671515 692916 992830 412123 182715

Table 22. Imports of crocodile skins (410112/4103.200-209) and crocodile
leather (410512 and 410522/4107.210-201) recorded in Thailand Customs
statistics (kg).

* January-October only.

| J SESS SSSS2 ESR 175051 31108
Eee sa0rs] sai] a2is| 9486
See ee ee ee ee ee Esmee

ee ee ee
[1 SS ee a a a
| 7 | asf nerf 95 _ 25520194 ssl _onase]_21sssq tonne] sozes

13

OS 1920009 OF OF onitn nols

}-ietes

a

i pe

eta 4 <1 e e
ieee! KOASAS

_

SOS LMS 6.40.02 Mities elifccias Je =
a bebacoen CROSORS COLPAG SECIS ~ tee

ya
—— be eT
| eo: Se dh Ge
<i oy FS EP
<0 Aa SS SiS AE IS Vag ec

[isa of o_o sf off

14

Sees co. a

Moe
ae t = — 7 _
me id “) prea eis les’ Le

| Singapore and Thailand have been reported to have huge quantities of caiman
skin products on sale and this trade may be facilitated by Singapore's having
| taken a reservation on Caiman crocodilus when it joined CITES in 1987. The
| reservation was withdrawn on 1 February 1992.
|

|Singapore Customs statistics no longer specify crocodile skins separately,
|/mixing them instead with skins of fish and other reptiles, but the Thai
Customs statistics have a separate category for crocodile skins. These are
shown in Table 22. Both skin and leather are reported but skin is by far the
greater quantity. Imports rose rapidly from around 2-3 tonnes prior to 1985
to 219t in 1988. In the first ten months of 1990, some 90t were imported.
The main sources have been Colombia, Singapore and Venezuela, suggesting that
the skins have been of Caiman crocodilus rather than another species of
crocodilian.

Thailand reports its overseas trade by country of origin rather than country
of consignment and it is possible that the skins represent re-exports rather
than direct exports from Venezuela or Colombia. CITES statistics record few
exports of crocodilian skins to Thailand, although there were 14,000 in 1988
and 840 in 1989. It would appear that the remainder of the trade has taken
place entirely outside CITES control. There is no reliable way to convert the
trade reported by weight to numbers of skins because much depends on the cut
and method of preservation. Dixon et al. (1988) estimated that the mean
weight of Caiman crocodilus skins imported to Japan was 260g and, using this
figure, the Customs statistics suggest imports of about 840,000 skins in 1988,
277,000 in 1989 and over 362,000 skins in 1990. This is far in excess of the
legal trade reported to CITES.

Most of the skins imported to Europe are manufactured into leather goods for
use within Europe or for export. Net exports of the main categories of
manufactured products from Italy and France in 1988 and 1989 are shown in
Tables 23-26, showing the declared countries of origin. Over these two years,
France exported a total of 914 wallets, 1,379,059 watchstraps, 380 pairs of
shoes, 954 handbags, 55,417 leather items and 132 garments. Italy exported
14,418 wallets, 127,838 watchstraps, 251,076 pairs of shoes, 35,493 handbags,
178,191 leather items and 1908 garments.

It is difficult to predict with accuracy how many leather products can be
“manufactured from a given number of skins and moreover a certain, possibly
large, percentage of the products are retailed within Europe. Thus there is
little useful that can be said about the quantities of products exported.
However, the proportions of skins and products reported from different
countries of origin are more instructive. The countries from which the
constituent skins were said to have originated bear some resemblance to those
from which skins were imported (Tables 27-28) but there are some notable
differences in the proportions from each source. Figure 1 shows the numbers
of skins imported to France from different countries in the period 1987-89 and
the numbers of products from different declared origins exported in 1988 and
1989. The majority of products were said to have originated in Venezuela,
Guyana and Colombia, but one of the main sources of skins was Paraguay which
hardly features in the exports of products. A similar comparison for Italy
is shown in Figure 2, where an even larger discrepancy is apparent. The great
majority of products were said to have been made from skins of Venezuelan and
Colombian origin, but the majority of skins imported derived from Bolivia,
with substantial quantities from Paraguay and Argentina. As Venezuela,
Colombia and Guyana all have management programmes for C. crocodilus, they are
widely known as legal sources of skins. It is possible that they were
declared as the source of the skins for re-exported manufactured products
because this causes fewer administrative problems on import. The more
contentious sources, such as Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia appear to be
under-represented. This may well be related to the USA Endangered Species
Act, which prohibits imports of Caiman crocodilus yacare, a species which
occurs in the latter three countries.

15

netileo 16 onbsiedans wou avai oF bestoges noe eyed. pngkieadt bos

priser @* on AVrie yo pajesiltveT oa CE abe 7 oat? bee offs co woes
, @8F .T8ei'a Syris beni 32) aatiw evuiyooters neates: 1th, AG levI8eet e
a : iSROL Vaduedss i: nd Futsiaelie sew

sesereyon nike oti fosowe Wicmgs sepiat of apis fonts . eis Soak -
Let mas vad mele rays: 6 tte Oe a +o wiits psi: basdeda out. piededa
BG Lhe ali boots a) Yaokoasee aeaghdes = byes! sHures ease tabs
wae: vA) ot et Hedy. tact beta pot Sab: degidwel bre atts doa 4 pee Ae
_ of Shleq Beno? =! baniats 8657, Vibiges. arom etzogn yal beer
besiege: e100 J00- gccr Ger! Socedsrom pet ani: edt nt 6. BRE ;
mi grin efaasane? bie etaegn fe 6idbal oo Sec ovad woo‘ om
pe id Yartons “Balls asin aud bo sass’ Hemle> Fo nee wen error

;

prams nena thos papi te Y2dewss va) pphay: dere sae ats nsnowel &

Boon easels mates Briiate git ea piste ee fee a
get ige by Wit shay yp adn she): eo Alenia a ntv§ adzogne Bae:
Ad 'segH2 ayer Ramat bedLintT oF enlus oF LL bonges 2e aa

as ou ol Sheed Gis 45 seietiames.edy ted theqdh bivow 27. OBOh Me
Cy Teter @hdstt eri om #. eet. Levtaos 227°9 sbdeade> vis Lobe
P chcabetfr- Sehewet! SHINS 40 -stedhos a3 Idpien yd Bee
tke SORELY TR 39. mkt .cocvevasnaay io
a sew: est i“ be stocies tide soliheseso ooekal
fone: Hicady 30 Basle! gseppie 65) Jolt, te pmaseut ae
Tori ‘ons at ear NG01 nijertista Oud ist save oie coer fy

Ego 2d bovioges

Sag a eiieateinae Bue 890108 ad Sestrogel woabee
sa to venous 340 .ticgue to1 ite esqokem:
a aE Pad Rae HL SENET tiie vylesTl sont stoebhoug
i igs ipazo eer ses, beveived ef? palwode y
‘ pe ihe Te bE. ao igJo9 ot Pt
mane act: bite Po! amis "LO, ee pen
PIR Wea OT LPS tyevindotew BES CEE y
i, Fs taetiene 0 aoe! Bas reese

= ad inition itiw toiteay oF S2a
gavan brn endive Ro side eyvic s- S
iw dyltetas sia 93 “hey edd le ependeey
AND wt? Zycyh! bise ot «eo tadd iui
Subtuy bra anjde to enodrregoug ad
dwisewitas: 0m, ae pls
iad dvail ct kien ow exits 2
det; bechroqut sspw eniate’
Sues Ause Nex sth ts 2mm - ef? af
Mee, 1us94222b) ais? sdker® of Bagoe
Re Ineseiteh moxt e7oehowy 40
Behe ey Sriwhnngy to eg! eu
S Alay. ahd 2 Seo sud = ipoiaes
4G tx eatoexs 2nd mt
Y say asters ie leea arte ye
oa ays 22 bage esaw:

\y
a
“y

f atiagm] 3
“sada ans becdeade Pere

Figure 1. Declared origins of skins of Caiman crocodilus imported to France
-in 1987-89 and of manufactured products exported in 1988-89.

French trade In Caiman skins

Skin [imports (87-89)
Thousends
Product exports (88-89)

AR 80 ao x Sv GF Gr cy HN PA PY ZA vE

BB sin Imports FE) product exports

Figure 2. Declared origins of skins of Caiman crocodilus imported to Italy
in 1987-89 and of manufactured products exported in 1988-89.

Italian trade in Caiman skins

120 300

100 250
lay
a qa
D a
; 60 200 a
5 wu
uv a
4g B oH
WW oes
yr d@ 60 150 8 i
5 3 Pex:
2 F rFo@
= %
= 40 400 3
a iM
a

AR BOCK wv

| Skin imports Product exports

16

ons as besaoygmi gui kbooow HoaLes, Fo erie 2O Anhpeto bennafosd,
MBBEEL. ct}, batratine wtoe “ay beawdeon hiner 6 bee 8S

i y
ae i

RN Late fem je cl aie ‘riorett

OE pg ee ee

+s sna: be, mi lowe {o'entgine same

iS

oa oho sy PSI ues oe

~

white ee as 7 1; See ne)tar!

Table 23. Net export from Italy in 1988 of products manufactured from Caiman
crocodilus skin from different declared countries of origin.

Country of origin

Venezuela 2975 13434 59755 33567] 330 |
Total 6170 65735 117245 22748 63238

‘Table 24. Net export from Italy in 1989 of products manufactured from Caiman

crocodilus skin from different declared countries of origin.

Country of origin

Argentina
Bolivia

Columbia

French Guiana
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras

Hong Kong

Indonesia

Italy
Panama

v
Zz
ao

Paraguay
El Salvador

Venezuela 3907 60423 62820 1670 39897
Uaksows (Le

17

oe BO woadd ness AA. pig: ech cay By 19 CERI int
DBL 40 | ae te PAliox babel ae’

t= URIS Qua wy, cose a pe eS Ft Ti
ryghef Iya | CORE) byte

+ pus

es!

ar ‘wits i. th ese%
Ty eeiad a= heen 1

}

>

i

re
pe

=

Table 25. Net export from France in 1988 of products manufactured from Caiman
crocodilus skin from different declared countries of origin.

Argentina

Guatemala

Guyana

Honduras

South Africa
Thailand

Venezuela

Table 26. Net export from France in 1989 of products manufactured from Caiman
erocodilus skin from different declared countries of origin.

a re 3
Se ee

SA
Venezuela #

19

NTL moat Setictoatwnan, coc vines to O90 L mE eons? mo1t Sroene- Jal Oe
‘tiskie Io: ne ined bite iget trovetiin o7! «adie: age

| nine” g je ee TSE ES

, wenn i? base Se bere Ate tae 4 staita'¥
-- = mir sentinnns ine Saar a
f '%
A Se
— ; -
ki
nn —
1 eeeae
a —
aes
o ito in .
af
Sc et rn wa ;
en nines —w ves
a
a et eer tie: Ny #) foam —— >— —
1 ORs
ei — ar ere —— -
be
————— a

i <r. ae ap let lib idic sis 16° OS88! ai eonews mavt 24

Saale} pes | serch ill botaloeh drensd tt cod of

Ot ALI AN IP an ile

=

f
is =) , 5 y
= ' 7 a

e :

= i ae
a d
if om i ,

it

i

Table 27.
to France,

Total

Table 28.

Declared countries of origin of skins of Caiman crocodilus imported
1983-89.

360
Pave Eas.
ae

360

246
34612 6969
eee
Lan
ee
ES

9980 43008 142

Sel a)
38379 17208 13986 16822 8347
42124 102208 136475

Declared countries of origin of skins of Caiman crocodilus imported

to Italy, 1983-89.

Fares [wena] es | oro | sas |

eee
[cyan | ass | 7503 | 5575
al

a | al
Foon | noua | sen] on | rom | ome] (| as | oe
eS a a ee

935 |
aber Pe seni ee

1623 13311 7704 18653

5

amen 1

eed 68697 99303 13375 44712

Other species

There has been no reported trade in 1988 and 1989 in skins of the following

species:

20

ReszGdot eulivonoun nesiso to emixts 15 nitiiago to aelssnees bexaiesd .TE
: a. os eee

hae (amaraae ia eT sabe eee s=4:

nnd | ape ry nt!
IW omiiemeelia ea eh a aan ee

: 4 | { hemi ine
i etataaie-tied pe aa hac eam ceil Rhett amtnd mo
; epee | sarah zie: atest | TEETH! ' ece
ope nen m a als ‘sr epeceneemtiae owen
, ORO, 4 ab 4,

Vy
> Neeeed-sSy'aqste 7 GIpLyO 10 apesariwe besatoed
ae fide OS a _.O8-f80F |
ee, ‘ ;
Ti

=a Ae Gite [sae
ie oe
es ee

Crocodylus intermedius Orinoco Crocodile, Crocodylus palustris Mugger,
Crocodylus rhombifer Cuban Crocodile, Gavialis gangeticus Gharial,
Tomistoma schlegelii False Gharial

One skin of Melanosuchus niger was reported seized on entry to the USA in
1989.

21

TspeDy Slasennen: nubybares Gehl ouodapd OSGdlA> Bud Hevea
O25 aunijegney “alietves SEthosexa visit THI K laos. &
; P ae LAI AKADS, Rhee Le lepstiice

nS A + 7 ne ieee e

ar ‘ant, aa ay. 1 ate whet haber omaroae aes Beyta SMOOVE ele ie

=

DISCUSSION

Table 29. Minimum net trade in classic crocodilian skins reported in CITES
annual reports.
* Gross exports from the USA

ee ed

al

Js a a ee ee eee ee

a ee a a ee

a a ae Pee 2 es
. ife

2030

157
ake I
[a ea)
ae
—
(ees

559
624
90573 65245 80545 92081 115419 128669 173223 77332

: heaaas| 2)
Lc rhombier | ee Sey
J c.siamenss | | eos | sar | 2050] ima | 501

The world trade in classic crocodilian skins is summarised in Table 29. There has
been an overall increase in the reported trade from 65,245 in 1984 to over 173,000
in 1989. As has been outlined for the individual species, this increase has been
due to the development of controlled management programmes in several countries
around the world. As a result of these changes, C. novaeguineae was overtaken by
A. mississippiensis as the main species in trade in 1987 and again by C. niloticus
in 1989. There is inevitably a further trade in classic crocodilian skins which
takes place outside CITES controls, but there is little evidence for it. The
principal areas of concern are Indonesia, where illegal harvesting of C. porosus
and C. novaeguineae continues, and Madagascar, where the export quotas have been
exceeded by almost a factor of five.

The trade in Caiman skins is still far less well regulated and the majority of this
is believed not to be under the control of CITES. Documented trade was in the
region of 800,000 in 1988, falling to some 300,000 in 1989, although the data are
less complete for that year. However, there is evidence of a similar quantity of
skins entering Thailand in 1988 without any CITES control. Europe is the major
destination for legal Caiman skins, although there is evidence that some skins
illegally enter the Community. There is a substantial tanning and manufacturing
industry in Europe, particularly Italy and France, and crocodile skin products are
re-exported to destinations all around the world. It is doubtful if the declared
origins of the products are correct in all cases.

Since 1987, several countries that previously had export quotas for Nile Crocodile
skins, have adopted ranching programmes and increased their output accordingly.
A new resolution (Conf. 7.14) was passed in 1989 redefining the special criteria
under which populations of Appendix I species could be transferred to Appendix II.
One of the chief features of this is the imposition of a time limit on such quota
schemes of a maximum of four years before ranching programmes must be instituted.

The phenomenal growth in the supply of skins for legal trade has had a serious
impact on the price of skins and must place in question the economic viability of

22

i 2 : ns : . z i
Satta hegronet giikeieslibosonn sisesio mi ebsit, Jan myn, «8X 4
: - sores sai

: ABU sit mort bs cde aeesoee :

a]

f Fj
4-1 hn iene
lau b=
{ |
oa Ancdipipabiaiaiane
lars
i oe —
ance tle } autody
» A ceeeiieeh homesite dae i, Sr
ieee ale ala + ee !
5 = oa 0H ec em ey =" — => Sr RREe

Ue Biante meriitoooss o¢peelo oi sbesdt
Tres* abst. be dab. aii 1: eecboned tS isiege
fpubSV itd ek “dot hen iisuc pesd eset tee,
Atemiggstia.n beliednon 3c tcduiypo layed
yadbneds “ESAS 30 tfoce: ¢ ca” .blaow
Sh itty Ai @eddeas wisn ei Re whee heny
'g0h37..20f0207 & yidsidiewni 6¢ weed
3 Sais sya jalessnes STIS olisawe Soe
iw ~Gisomolytl 7a ateope: bo eee ae
eesrepntek Pie ,860nl7nG5 enerineskve
Ove? 30 4ovens « stehse ¥@:

~ >.

by oh lowe arts abel rou,

(DF * Epo Do giti Tie? ee td , 060, 84
Raga eVeROn 6 aAby Akko Soe
: PiBASiM Bell re) bite Ls 2a pe
ie dvoid (GAae terion lavas a
Lin i at @ UPL atime ‘ote ay
Be Sk a letyl Sagi) age vik red
ances bie airod Jai 7 seh om
viesen iw te geavie> Sie esub040 4 a co

ara

tepiees® SOl aw ies ana (lise w! eine bars

ae

a das aeindaves

adie oe aL

2 ; ‘a
SORES | ws 3

ati : hoe
s Ady appre $c. 5

Aes ey aioe Vey 7

"3 eon Vigaire ans ne hae
- Mat Dnt. avlae ry roa

ierevoe, 4 7 f

ens

‘

MONITORING CENTRE

cn @

WCMC provides information services on conservation and sustainable use of
the world’s living resources and helps others to develop information systems
of their own. The Centre was founded in 1988 by IUCN — The World
Conservation Union, UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme and
WWE — World Wide Fund for Nature.

219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge, CB3 ODL, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)1223 277314
Fax: +44 (0)1223 277136
Email: info@wemc.org.uk
www: wcmc.org.uk