Analysis of the impact of EU decisions on trade patterns

Report 1: Overview of EU decisions

(Version edited for public release)

Prepared for the

European Commission

Directorate General Environment

Directorate E - Global & Regional Challenges, LIFE

ENV.E.2. – Global Sustainability, Trade & Multilateral Agreements

by the

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

November, 2013

UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre

219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1223 277314 Fax: +44 (0) 1223 277136 Email: species@unep-wcmc.org Website: www.unep-wcmc.org The United Nations Environment Programme

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-

WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment

centre of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost

intergovernmental environmental organisation.

The Centre has been in operation for over 30 years,

combining scientific research with practical policy

advice. The Centre's mission is to evaluate and highlight the many values of biodiversity and put

authoritative biodiversity knowledge at the centre

of decision-making. Through the analysis and

synthesis of global biodiversity knowledge the

Centre provides authoritative, strategic and timely

information for conventions, countries and organisations to use in the development and

implementation of their policies and decisions.

UNEP-WCMC provides objective and scientifically

rigorous procedures and services. These include

ecosystem assessments, support for the

implementation of environmental agreements,

global and regional biodiversity information,

research on threats and impacts, and the

development of future scenarios.

CITATION

UNEP-WCMC. 2013. Analysis of the impact of EU

decisions on trade patterns. Report 1: Overview of EU decisions. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

PREPARED FOR

The European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of UNEP, contributory

organisations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the

expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part

of UNEP, the European Commission or

contributory organisations, editors or publishers

concerning the legal status of any country, territory,

city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The

mention of a commercial entity or product in this

publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.

© Copyright: 2013, European Commission

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and background ........................................................................................................... 2

2. Potential impacts of EU decisions and scope of analysis .............................................................. 4

3. Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 5

4. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 12

5. References .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Annex I: Key to purpose and source codes ....................................................................................................... 14

Annex II: CITES regions ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Scope of analysis

2

1. Introduction and background

This is the first of a series of reports which examine the impact of EU trade restrictions on trade patterns and potential implications for species conservation. Sustainable wildlife trade can provide financial incentives to conserve habitats and manage wildlife resources sustainably; therefore, understanding and potentially mitigating unintended impacts of trade restrictions where necessary is of great importance.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in species that are threatened by international trade to avoid over-exploitation through trade. Article IV of the Convention introduces the requirement for a (re-)export permit for Appendix II species, which is to be issued by the exporting country if certain conditions are met. Article XIV allows Parties to the Convention to adopt stricter domestic measures relating to the conditions of trade, both for listed species listed as well as those not listed in the CITES Appendices.

In the European Union (EU), CITES is implemented through the Wildlife Trade Regulations1. The provisions of Article 4(2) a) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 require EU importers to make a non-detriment finding (NDF) also for Annex B species – this is in addition to the NDF that is to be done by non-EU exporters in accordance with CITES provisions. These stricter measures allow EU Member States to:

• Assess the sustainability of the trade and whether they agree that the NDF by the exporting country is adequate;

• Verify the legal origin of the specimen;

• Assess the suitability of accommodation for live specimens;

• Prevent the introduction of invasive alien species into the EU; and

• Assess whether there are any other factors that may militate against the import.

When EU CITES Scientific Authorities are assessing import applications for Annex A or B species, they are required to take into consideration any opinions formed by the Scientific Review Group (SRG). This process aims at ensuring uniform application of the Wildlife Trade Regulations across the EU. SRG opinions remain valid for subsequent import permit requests, as long as the conservation status and trade levels have not changed significantly. There are five types of SRG opinions:

Positive: Given current or anticipated levels of trade, introduction into the EU would not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species.

Negative: The information available is insufficient to form a positive opinion and/or given current or anticipated levels of trade, introduction into the EU might have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species. This type of opinion may be formalized as an Article 4.6 import suspension (published in Suspensions Regulations).

No opinion i): No significant trade is anticipated. The species is not currently (or is only rarely) in trade, and no significant trade in relation to the conservation status of the species is anticipated.

No opinion ii): Decision deferred. Insufficient data is available on which to issue a confident positive or negative opinion.

No opinion iii): Referral to the SRG. The species is not currently/only rarely in trade, but is of sufficient conservation concern that the SRG has determined that any application must be referred to the SRG for a decision before a permit is issued or refused.

1 Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and its amendment Commission Regulation (EU) No. 750/2013; Commission Regulation (EC) No. 865/2006 and its amendments; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 792/2012; and the current Suspensions Regulation (Commission Regulation (EC) No. 578/2013, at the time of writing).

Scope of analysis

3

Desired outcome Process Mechanism

Conservation

of

Wildlife

Maintains population

Threatens population

+ve incentives

Maintains supply

If concerns arise over the sustainability of trade, the EU may impose import restrictions in the form of negative opinions or import suspensions for the species/country combinations, and no further imports2 can take place into the EU. The EU is one of the largest importers of wildlife and its products globally and import restrictions result in the exporting country losing a potentially substantial market across 28 countries at once.

Import restrictions may have economic and livelihood implications in range States and may lead to shifts in trade patterns, for example by creating incentives for captive breeding of the species concerned once the import of wild-sourced specimens is suspended, by increasing demand for other wild-sourced taxa, or by resulting in importers sourcing specimens from other range countries. Such patterns have been observed for a number of species in previous studies, such as for Ursus arctos, Psittacus erithacus or Pericopsis elata (Ó Críodáin, 2007; UNEP-WCMC, 2001; Valaoraas, 1998). These observations, consideration of outcomes of the workshop ´EC legislation on wildlife trade´ (Vilm, November 2006), and consultation with the CITES Secretariat had led to a number of recommendations aimed at improving the implementation of SRG opinions, including:

• Improve implementation and follow-up on negative opinions/suspensions with the range State(s) concerned, in particular providing advice and guidance on what remedial measures are required;

• Increase transparency in the SRG processes through improved communication with range State(s) concerned (recognised to have resource implications for the Commission);

• Clarify the system of opinions for the benefit of third countries, e.g. by making negative opinions explicitly binding and dispense with suspensions Regulations (the legal implications of this change was recognised to require further analysis) (Ó Críodáin, 2007).

Furthermore, the additional NDFs carried out by EU importing countries was reported to “cause ill feeling among many exporting countries”, as countries of export would expect exports of Appendix II species from their country to be free of such additional procedures, once their export permits have been issued (Ó Críodáin, 2007). The question arises how exporting countries perceive and manage import restrictions imposed by the EU. Ultimately, EU decisions are a mechanism under the Wildlife Trade Regulations that aims at the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife resources (Figure 1). Through analysing the impacts that EU decisions may have, this series of reports aims at assisting the process by highlighting areas of success and areas which may benefit from further focussed work.

Figure 1: Ideal impact pathway of SRG opinions and Article 4.6 suspensions, ultimately aiming at the conservation of wildlife.

2 Exemptions apply, as per Wildlife Trade Regulations above.

Trade ManagementSustainable

offtakeSRG decisions

Scope of analysis

4

2. Potential impacts of EU decisions and scope of analysis

In order to understand whether or not SRG opinions and Article 4.6 suspensions ultimately contribute to an improvement in species’ conservation status, CITES trade data will be analysed across taxa and trading partners in a series of reports. The reports will also investigate whether EU decisions may potentially have some less desirable effects, which would need to be addressed. Recognizing the manifold nature of potential impacts and considering the vast size of the CITES trade data available, it is suggested that this analysis is divided into four reports, to allow a focused and more in-depth analysis of potential impacts. Previous efforts to understand the impact of EU decisions, including the recommendations in Ó Críodáin (2007), will be taken into consideration.

The four reports will focus on EU decisions formed since 1997 and particular potential trade patterns, as follows:

Report 1: Overview of EU decisions: The present document provides a preliminary analysis and an overview of EU decisions on a regional scale and by taxonomic group. It also introduces the scope of the next four reports.

Report 2: Shift in source and purpose codes: Analysis of the source codes reported in trade for species/country combinations subject to EU trade restrictions, in order to assess whether EU decisions may be promoting a shift in trade (actual or reported) from wild-sourced specimens to captive-bred/born, ranched or artificially propagated specimens. Furthermore, the closure of the EU market for wild-sourced specimens from a country may potentially lead to an increase in claims of specimens as being of captive-bred origin or artificially propagated to circumvent these EU restrictions.

This report will also assess whether shifts in purpose codes are observed as a consequence of EU trade restrictions for commercial trade (for example from T ‘commercial’ to H ‘hunting trophies’, P ‘personal’, or B ‘breeding’).

This report will be prepared in collaboration with TRAFFIC.

Report 3: Shift in trade routes and taxa: Analysis of any shifts in trade routes or in taxa traded as a potential result of EU trade restrictions. Effects may include shifts to other closely related taxa or other species groups from the same country, or increased exports from other range States of the taxa affected. Furthermore, closure of the EU market as a result of a trade restriction for a particular species/country combination may not reduce trade levels, if demand from non-EU countries still exceeds supply.

Report 4: Effect of EU decisions on action taken by range States: Analysis of feedback from countries subject to EU trade restrictions, to assess whether they serve as an incentive for countries to provide better information more quickly or to improve management measures in place. This report will draw from the results of the previous reports and will re-visit the recommendations made in the ‘Effectiveness study’ by TRAFFIC (Ó Críodáin, 2007) to assess whether and which measures have been taken since 2007 and whether they are considered to be effective.

Overview

5

Figure 3: Number of species/country combinations subject to trade restrictions (negative opinions and Article 4.6 suspensions), positive opinions and no opinions (types i, ii and iii combined) over time across all taxa and regions, for wild-sourced (W), captive-born (F) and ranched (R) specimens.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Trade restrictions Positive opinions No opinions

3. Overview

Trade restrictions in the form of negative opinions and Article 4.6 import suspensions have been formed and applied by the SRG since 1997, when Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 was adopted. Over the period 1997-2013, nearly 1700 species in 211 countries3 and territories have been subject to trade restrictions at some point, with both the taxa affected and the regional distribution of these trade restrictions shifting over time. Figure 2 illustrates the trade restrictions in place in three years, 1998, 2005 and 2012, showing both the regional as well as taxonomic patterns and shifts.

The total number of species/country combinations subject to trade restrictions decreased over time for all of the CITES regions. This may indicate that some of the countries affected responded to restrictions by changing the management of the species concerned, or by ceasing trading. Africa was the CITES Region with the highest number of species/country combinations subject to EU trade restrictions for all years, followed by Asia; North America was the region with the fewest restrictions over time.

Trade restrictions by taxonomic group show a decline in the number of species/country combinations over time for mammals, while other taxa gained in importance, e.g. reptiles in Africa and plants and invertebrates in the Asian region (Figure 2).

A number of substantial reviews have taken place in order to assess whether long-standing positive opinions (7 reports) and suspension (7 reports) in particular were still warranted:

As a result of these review processes, a total of 261 suspensions were formally removed in 2009-2011 and 1843 long-standing positive opinions were removed in 2011-2013. A large proportion of long-standing positive opinions were removed due to no or virtually no reported trade and were consequently replaced with ‘no opinion’ type i) (representing 69% of ‘no opinions’ in 2013; type ii) accounted for 2% and type iii) for 16%) (Figure 3; note that as for the purposes of the analysis positive opinions applied to the end of the year in which they were removed, ‘no opinions’ appear to increase before positive opinions decrease).

SRG trade restriction for specific species/country and source combinations had an average duration of 8 years; 38% of the restrictions were in force for 1-5 years, while 30% were in force for 13-17 years (a small proportion of the latter were trade restrictions for species which are considered invasive).

A high number of negative opinions and Article 4.6 import suspensions had been formed for and applied to taxa originating in Africa 1997-2013, with a high proportion applying to Madagascar (Figure 4). Madagascar was also the country with the highest number of taxa subject to trade suspensions overall. Some South American countries were subject to a high number of trade restrictions in the 1990s, but by 2012 these numbers had declined substantially.

EU trade restrictions applied to a large number of species in the period 1997-2013, and trade in some species was restricted for a number of its range countries (Table 1). The majority of these restrictions were as a result of concerns over the conservation status and sustainability of trade, but some species were also subject to trade restrictions as they are considered invasive.

3 Some opinions had been formed and applied to old names of countries.

Overview

6

Figure 2: Number of EU trade restrictions (negative opinions and Article 4.6 import suspensions) by taxonomic group that were applicable to species/country combinations within each of the CITES Regions during 1998, 2005 and 2012. Only trade restrictions formed for wild-sourced (W), captive-born (F) and ranched (R) specimens are included.

55.6% A272.0

48.9% A239.0

Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Invertebrates Plants

2005

1998

2012

489

27

Overview

7

Figure 4: Number of taxa affected by trade restrictions in 1998, 2005 and 2012.

No. of opinions

0

1 - 10

11 -20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 +

2012

2005

1998

Overview

8

Table 1: Species with the highest numbers of range states subject to trade restrictions 1997-2013 (sources W, R and F) by region; top three species are included, where the trade restriction applied to more than one country. Region Group Name Countries

Africa Mammals Hippopotamus amphibius 24

Leptailurus serval 10

Papio anubis 9

Birds Balearica regulorum 16

Poicephalus robustus 15

Psittacus erithacus 17

Reptiles Geochelone sulcata 15

Kinixys belliana 38

Kinixys erosa 21

Fish Anguilla anguilla 8

Invertebrates Pandinus imperator 3

Tridacna rosewateri 2

Plants Cycas thouarsii 2

Pericopsis elata 5

Prunus africana 4

Asia Mammals Ovis ammon 10

Cynogale bennettii 7

Callosciurus erythraeus 12

Birds Gyps bengalensis 15

Gyps indicus 11

Anthropoides virgo 22

Reptiles Trachemys scripta elegans 8

Manouria emys 12

Testudo horsfieldii 9

Amphibians Lithobates catesbeianus 3

Fish Acipenser gueldenstaedtii 2

Anguilla anguilla 3

Hippocampus kuda 3

Invertebrates Tridacna crocea 2

Tridacna derasa 2

Tridacna gigas 2

Plants Cypripedium japonicum 4

Cypripedium macranthos 5

Dendrobium bellatulum 7

Central and South America and the Caribbean

Mammals Ateles belzebuth 5

Ateles geoffroyi 8

Ateles paniscus 5

Birds Oxyura jamaicensis 16

Region Group Name Countries

Crax rubra 5

Amazona auropalliata 4

Reptiles Caiman crocodilus fuscus 7

Podocnemis expansa 6

Chelonoidis denticulata 10

Amphibians Lithobates catesbeianus 4

Invertebrates Strombus gigas 6

Plants Swietenia macrophylla 2

Europe Mammals Canis lupus 5

Lynx lynx 4

Ursus arctos 4

Birds Oxyura jamaicensis 4

Anthropoides virgo 18

Reptiles Trachemys scripta elegans 3

Testudo horsfieldii 3

Fish Acipenser gueldenstaedtii 2

Acipenser stellatus 2

Anguilla anguilla 17

Plants Galanthus nivalis 7

Ophrys insectifera 7

Orchis simia 8

North America

Mammals Sciurus carolinensis 2

Sciurus niger 3

Birds Oxyura jamaicensis 5

Amazona oratrix 2

Reptiles Chrysemys picta 3

Trachemys scripta elegans 4

Gopherus agassizii 2

Amphibians Lithobates catesbeianus 4

Oceania Birds Accipiter imitator 2

Falco hypoleucos 2

Nesasio solomonensis 2

Reptiles Varanus indicus 3

Invertebrates Tridacna derasa 5

Tridacna gigas 8

Tridacna maxima 6

Overview

9

Box 1: Annex A taxa subject to trade restrictions 1997-2013 specific to trophy hunting purposes. Taxon Annex/Appendix

Capra falconeri A/I Ovis ammon nigrimontana A/I Canis lupus A/B/I/II Felis silvestris A/II Lynx lynx A/II Ursus arctos A/II Ursus thibetanus A/I Loxodonta africana A/B/I/II Leucopternis occidentalis A/II

Box 2: Top three species for which positive opinions were in place for the highest number of countries over 1997-2013 (cases where the opinion applied to one country only have been excluded).

Group Species Countries

Mammals Pecari tajacu 22 Tayassu pecari 20 Canis lupus 12

Birds Colibri coruscans 9 Phoeniconaias minor 44 Psittacus erithacus 10

Reptiles Iguana iguana 30 Chamaeleo dilepis 23 Chamaeleo gracilis 28

Fish Anguilla anguilla 2 Invertebrates Pocillopora damicornis 58

Pocillopora verrucosa 57 Tubastraea coccinea 62

Plants Dicksonia sellowiana 16 Cymbidium dayanum 12 Rhynchostylis retusa 15

Table 2: Overview of total number of trade restrictions in place in 1997-2013 by CITES Region and taxonomic group, with an indication of the countries with the highest number of restrictions also provided.

Region Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fish Invertebrates Plants

Total Country Total Country Total Country Total Country Total Country Total Country Total Country

Africa 197 Various 222 GN (36)

252 MG (76)

16 MG (15)

16 Various 8 Various 62 MG (36)

Asia 87 CN (15)

93 ID (33)

120 ID (24)

3 CN, JP,

TW 23

ID (7), IR (6)

46 ID (32), VN (6), PH (5)

80 MY (29), VN(29)

Europe 21 RU (6) 27 Various 6

Various - - 42 RU (7) 4 NC (4) 132 TR (22), PL (16), SK (15)

North America

8 CA (4) 13 MX (7), PR (3)

17 MX (8), US (6)

4 Various 2 US 2 GU, MX 1 MX

South America and Caribbean

98

BR (24), PE (12), CO (10), EC (10)

158 PE (24), EC (20)

64 Various 13 NI (3), PE (3)

1 BR 9 HT (2)

4 BO, BR, BZ, GT

Oceania 2 AU, PG 36 SB (13), PG (11), AU (5)

16 AU (7), PG (5), SB (3)

- -

1 AU 69 TO (30), FJ (14), SB (11)

- -

The number of species within taxonomic groups which were subject to SRG trade restrictions varied substantially across countries within CITES regions and globally over the period 1997-2013. In Africa, Madagascar had the highest number of trade restrictions in place over the period 1997-2013 for reptiles, amphibians and plants, while in Asia Indonesia had the highest number for four taxonomic groups (Table 2).

Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of trade restrictions applicable in 2013 and may indicate areas of recent or ongoing concern. It appears that a relatively high number of reptile and plant species in south-eastern Africa are subject to concerns; South-East Asian countries are also subject to a high number of reptile species restrictions and concerns over many coral species within the Coral Triangle.

Trade restrictions were also put in place for trophy hunting purposes for a number of Annex A species, some of which are listed in CITES Appendix II, or split-listed (Box 1). Trade restrictions for these taxa were in place between one and 10 years, with an average of 4.5 years. Positive opinions were also formed for a number of range states for five of these taxa (Capra falconeri, Canis lupus, Ursus arctos, Lynx lynx, Loxodonta africana).

While this series of reports mainly focuses on trade restrictions, the regional and taxonomical distribution of positive opinions is also of interest in the context of the impact of EU opinions. Box 2 provides an overview of the top three species for which positive opinions were in place for the highest number of range states at some point during the period 1997 to 2013. For some of them, for example Anguilla anguilla, the positive opinion is no longer valid. Figure 6 shows the number of species/country combinations for which positive opinions were in place over the period 1997-2013, by taxonomic group and region.

Overview

10

Figure 5: Number of species by taxonomic group subject to trade restrictions (negative opinions and Article 4.6 suspensions) in different countries in 2013 (sources W, R and F).

0

1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

9 - 10

0

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 25

26 - 30

0

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 40

41 - 48

0

1 - 5

6 - 10

0

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 22

0

1 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 15

16 - 20

21 - 23

0

1 - 2

3 - 4

5 - 6

7 - 8

Mammals Birds

Reptiles Amphibians

Fish Invertebrates

Plants

Overview

11

Figure 6: Number of EU positive opinions by taxonomic group that were applicable to species/country combinations within each of the CITES Regions in the period 1997-2013. Only trade restrictions formed for wild-sourced (W), captive-born (F) and ranched (R) specimens are included.

050

100150200250300350400450500

Mam

mals

Bir

ds

Reptile

sA

mphib

ians

Fis

hIn

vert

ebra

tes

Pla

nts

Mam

mals

Bir

ds

Reptile

sFis

hIn

vert

ebra

tes

Pla

nts

Mam

mals

Bir

ds

Reptile

sA

mphib

ians

Invert

ebra

tes

Pla

nts

Mam

mals

Bir

ds

Reptile

sFis

hIn

vert

ebra

tes

Pla

nts

Mam

mals

Bir

ds

Reptile

sFis

hIn

vert

ebra

tes

Pla

nts

Mam

mals

Bir

ds

Reptile

sIn

vert

ebra

tes

Pla

nts

Africa Asia Central and South America

and the Caribbean

Europe North America Oceania

Methods

12

4. Methods

The data analysed for this report includes the following:

- Opinions and Article 4.6 suspensions were downloaded from Species+ http://www.speciesplus.net/species on 2/10/2013; therefore all EU decisions formed up to SRG65 are included

- All EU decisions formed for species included in all EU Annexes

- Only EU decisions formed for wild-sourced (W), ranched (R) and captive-bred (F) specimens were included in the main analysis, unless otherwise specified

- Only negative opinions and Article 4.6(b) suspensions were included, unless otherwise specified

- Only the year in which the opinion/suspension was applied was considered for this analysis (i.e. not to month or date scale)

The following ‘conversions’ were applied to the data:

- Where the source was not specified for opinions and suspensions, it was assumed to apply to wild-sourced specimens

- To facilitate this analysis, opinions formed in one year were applied as being valid for the whole year, even if they were formed or removed part-way through the year. Where opinions were confirmed more than once in the same year, only one of the opinions was selected, to avoid double-counting

- Suspensions were applied to be valid for the years when they were published in the Suspensions Regulations, but not in the year when the suspension was removed

- In 2001, two Suspensions Regulations were published in the same year. Trade restrictions were applied to all taxa suspended in either one of these Regulations, while not allowing double-counting of taxon/country combinations for which suspensions were in place in both Regulations

- Opinions formed at higher taxonomic level were “translated” into the number of species occurring in that country (with the exception of opinions formed for coral rock, where opinions are formed at the order level)

- Negative opinions and Article 4.6 suspensions were treated as ‘trade restrictions’

- Where a negative opinion and a Article 4.6 suspensions were in place in the same year, only one of them was applied, to avoid double-counting

- The different types of suspensions (Art. 4.6 (a), (b), (c), (d)) were treated as one generic ‘suspension’, i.e. not separated by type

- The different types of ‘no opinions’ were treated as a generic ‘no opinion’, i.e. not separated by type

- Where species numbers affected by trade restrictions were counted, double-counting due to restrictions being in place for different source codes or terms was avoided. For all other purposes, sources and terms were kept separate

- For the purposes of this analysis, countries were included within the six CITES regions (see Annex I)

References

13

5. References

Ó Críodáin, C. (2007). Study on the effectiveness of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations. (p. 238). Brussels, Belgium: A TRAFFIC Europe report for the European Commission.

UNEP-WCMC. (2001). Effectiveness of past EC stricter measures on wildlife imports. A preparatory methodological study on the assessment of EC import bans. Cambridge, UK.

Valaoraas, G. (1998). Monitoring of Wildlife Trade in the European Union: Assessign the Effectiveness of EU CITES Import Policies. Brussels, Belgium.

Annex I: Key to purpose and source codes

14

Annex I: Key to purpose and source codes

Purpose of trade

Code Description

T Commercial

Z Zoo

G Botanical garden

Q Circus or travelling exhibition

S Scientific

H Hunting trophy

P Personal

M Medical (including biomedical research)

E Educational

N Reintroduction or introduction into the wild

B Breeding in captivity or artificial propagation

L Law enforcement / judicial / forensic

Source of specimens

Code Description

W Specimens taken from the wild

R Ranched specimens: specimens of animals reared in a controlled environment, taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood

D Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention

A Plants that are artificially propagated in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP15), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 (specimens of species included in Appendix I that have been propagated artificially for non-commercial purposes and specimens of species included in Appendices II and III)

C Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5

F Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that do not fulfil the definition of ‘bred in captivity’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof

U Source unknown (must be justified)

I Confiscated or seized specimens (may be used with another code)

O Pre-Convention specimens

Annex II: CITES regions

15

Annex II: CITES regions

ISO Country CITES Region4

AF Afghanistan 2 AL Albania 4 DZ Algeria 1 AD Andorra 4 AO Angola 1 AI Anguilla 3 AG Antigua and Barbuda 3 AR Argentina 3 AM Armenia 4 AU Australia 6 AT Austria 4 AZ Azerbaijan 4 BS Bahamas 3 BH Bahrain 2 BD Bangladesh 2 BB Barbados 3 BY Belarus 4 BE Belgium 4 BZ Belize 3 BJ Benin 1 BT Bhutan 2 BO Bolivia 3 BA Bosnia and Herzegovina 4 BW Botswana 1 BR Brazil 3 BN Brunei Darussalam 2 BG Bulgaria 4 BF Burkina Faso 1 BI Burundi 1 KH Cambodia 2 CM Cameroon 1 CA Canada 5 CV Cape Verde 1 CF Central African Republic 1 TD Chad 1 CL Chile 3 CN China 2 CO Colombia 3 KM Comoros 1 CG Congo 1 CK Cook Islands 6 CR Costa Rica 3 CI Côte d'Ivoire 1 HR Croatia 4 CU Cuba 3 CY Cyprus 4 CZ Czech Republic 4 KP Democratic People's Republic of 2 CD Democratic Republic of the

Congo 1

DK Denmark 4 DJ Djibouti 1 DM Dominica 3 DO Dominican Republic 3 EC Ecuador 3

4 1 = Africa, 2 = Asia, 3 = Central and South America and the Caribbean, 4 = Europe, 5 = North America, 6 = Oceania

ISO Country CITES Region4

EG Egypt 1 SV El Salvador 3 GQ Equatorial Guinea 1 ER Eritrea 1 EE Estonia 4 ET Ethiopia 1 FO Faroe Islands 4 FJ Fiji 6 FI Finland 4 FR France 4 GA Gabon 1 GM Gambia 1 GE Georgia 4 DE Germany 4 GH Ghana 1 GR Greece 4 GD Grenada 3 GT Guatemala 3 GN Guinea 1 GW Guinea-Bissau 1 GY Guyana 3 HT Haiti 3 VA Holy See 4 HN Honduras 3 HU Hungary 4 IS Iceland 4 IN India 2 ID Indonesia 2 IR Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2 IQ Iraq 2 IE Ireland 4 IL Israel 4 IT Italy 4 JM Jamaica 3 JP Japan 2 JO Jordan 2 KZ Kazakhstan 2 KE Kenya 1 KI Kiribati 6 KW Kuwait 2 KG Kyrgyzstan 2 LA Lao People's Democratic

Republic 2

LV Latvia 4 LB Lebanon 2 LS Lesotho 1 LR Liberia 1 LY Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1 LI Liechtenstein 4 LT Lithuania 4 LU Luxembourg 4 MG Madagascar 1 MW Malawi 1 MY Malaysia 2 MV Maldives 2 ML Mali 1 MT Malta 4 Marshall Islands 6 MR Mauritania 1

Annex II: CITES regions

16

ISO Country CITES Region4

MU Mauritius 1 MX Mexico 5 FM Micronesia (Federated States of) 6 MC Monaco 4 MN Mongolia 2 ME Montenegro 4 MA Morocco 1 MZ Mozambique 1 MM Myanmar 2 NA Namibia 1 NR Nauru 6 NP Nepal 2 NL Netherlands 4 NZ New Zealand 6 NI Nicaragua 3 NE Niger 1 NG Nigeria 1 NU Niue 6 NO Norway 4 OM Oman 2 PK Pakistan 2 PW Palau 6 PA Panama 3 PG Papua New Guinea 6 PY Paraguay 3 PE Peru 3 PH Philippines 2 PL Poland 4 PT Portugal 4 QA Qatar 2 KR Republic of Korea 2 MD Republic of Moldova 4 RO Romania 4 RU Russian Federation 4 RW Rwanda 1 KN Saint Kitts and Nevis 3 LC Saint Lucia 3 VC Saint Vincent and the 3 WS Samoa 6 SM San Marino 4 ST Sao Tome and Principe 1 SA Saudi Arabia 2 SN Senegal 1 RS Serbia 4

ISO Country CITES Region4

SC Seychelles 1 SL Sierra Leone 1 SG Singapore 2 SK Slovakia 4 SI Slovenia 4 SB Solomon Islands 6 SO Somalia 1 ZA South Africa 1 ES Spain 4 LK Sri Lanka 2 SD Sudan 1 SR Suriname 3 SZ Swaziland 1 SE Sweden 4 CH Switzerland 4 SY Syrian Arab Republic 2 TJ Tajikistan 2 TH Thailand 2 MK The former Yugoslav Republic

of Macedonia 4

TL Timor-Leste 2 TG Togo 1 TO Tonga 6 TT Trinidad and Tobago 3 TN Tunisia 1 TR Turkey 4 TM Turkmenistan 2 TC Turks and Caicos Islands 3 TV Tuvalu 6 UG Uganda 1 UA Ukraine 4 AE United Arab Emirates 2 GB United Kingdom of Great 4 TZ United Republic of Tanzania 1 US United States of America 5 UY Uruguay 3 UZ Uzbekistan 2 VU Vanuatu 6 VE Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic 3 VN Viet Nam 2 YE Yemen 2 ZM Zambia 1 ZW Zimbabwe 1