GGT’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENT PROPOSALSFOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOURTEENTH MEETING
OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO CITES(The Hague, 2007)

GLOBAL GUARDIAN TRUSTFor the benefit of species and people(GGT’s motto)

A publication of the Global Guardian Trust. 2007

Global Guardian Trust
Nishishinbashi 3-25-47, Minato-ku,
Tokyo 105-0003
Japan

1

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONSNo.
12345678
910
11
1213
1415
1617181920212223242526
2728
2930
3132333435
3637Species
Nicticebus spp.
slow lorise
Lynx rufus
bobcats
Panthera pardus
leopardLoxodonta africana
African elephant
Loxodonta africana
African elephant
Loxodonta africana
African elephant
Loxodonta africana
African elephantVicugna vicugna
vicunaCervus elaphus barbarus
Barbary red deer
Gazella cuvieri
Cuvier’s gazelle
Gazella dorcas
Dorcas gazelle
Gazella leptoceros
slender horned gazelle
Melanoschus niger
black caiman
Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti
Guatemalan beaded lizard
Lamna nasus
porbeagle
Squalus acanthias
spiny dogfish
Pristidae spp.
sawfishes
Anguilla anguilla
European eel
Pterapogon kauderni
Banggai cardinalfish
Panulirus argus, P. laevicauda
spiny lobsters
Corallium spp.
red corals
Agave arizonica
Arizona agave
Nolina interrata
Dehesa bear-grass
Pereskia spp., Quiabentia spp.
cactusPereskiopsis spp.
cactusCactaceae spp. etc.
plantsAdonis vernalis, etc.
plantsShortia galacifolia
Oconee bell
Euphorbia spp.
spurgesCaesalpinia echinata
Brazil wood
Dalbergia retusa, D. granadillorosewood
Dalbergia stevensonii
rosewood
Cedrela spp.
Spanish cedar
Orchidaceae spp.
orchidsOrchidaceae spp.
orchids
Taxus cuspidata
Japanese yew
Taxus spp.
Asian yews

2

Amendment
II→I
II→0
I→II
annotation
annotation
annotation
I→II
annotation
III→I
III→I
III→I
III→I
I→II
II→I

Recommendation
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
withdrawn
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No

0→II
0→II
0→I
0→II
0→II
0→II
0→II
I→0
I→II
II→0
II→0
annotation
annotation
II→0annotation
0→II
0→II
0→II
0→II
annotation
annotation
annotation
annotation

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS

Prop. 1. Transfer of slow lorises Nycticebus spp. from Appendix II to Appendix I (Cambodia)
Although populations have been declining, the species do not meet the criteria for Appendix I
listing. The slow lorises are protected in several range states including Cambodia. Nevertheless,a large number of animals are on sale at domestic markets. The range states need to makeenforcement efforts internally. Appendix I listing will not solve the problems. It is also regrettable
to note that the supporting statement is incomplete, in particular on “species management” which
is most required for the species conservation. The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 2. Deletion of bobcats Lynx rufus from Appendix II (USA)The bobcat occurs in Canada, USA and Mexico. The populations are stable or increasing despite
the bobcat is harvested for its pelt. The bobcat does not meet the Appendix II listing criteria.
Hunting is well regulated by individual States. There is no need to continue to list the species inAppendix II. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 3. Transfer of Uganda’s population of leopards Panthera pardus from Appendix Ito Appendix II with an annual export quota of 50 animals (Uganda)
The leopard has been listed in Appendix I since the inception of CITES. The species is notthreatened with extinction and does not meet Appendix I criteria. Eleven African countries havetheir quotas for leopards without transferring their populations to Appendix II. Uganda may wish toexploit the same effect as these countries under Conf. 10.14 (Rev. CoP 13). Although Uganda’s
proposal does not follow the format as described in Annex 6 of Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP 13), it isclear that the establishment of an export quota will create conservation incentives to localcommunities. Either this proposal or the possible request under Conf. 10.14 should be accepted.

Prop. 4. Amendment of annotation to the African elephant Loxodonta africana populations ofBotswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe (Botswana and Namibia)
The proponents eloquently elaborate the reason why the proposal needs to be adopted. The
existing Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP 12) and other CITES-related regulations are sufficient
safeguards. If these regulations and procedures do not function, it would mean the total failure ofCITES itself. Starting with 1989 decision, southern African countries have witnessed unfairness
surrounding CITES decision making processes. Due consideration should be given to thesuccess of elephant conservation made by these countries. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 5. Amendment of annotation fto the Botswana population of African elephants Loxodonta
africana (Botswana)3

Botswana has the largest elephant population as a result of its successful management
programme. The rationale for the proposal is well elaborated in the supporting statement.
Botswana has managed its elephant population in line with the spirit of CITES and their efforts
need to be rewarded by the rest of the world at CITES arena. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 6. Amendment of annotation to the African elephant Loxodonta africana populations ofBotswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe (Kenya and Mali)
India and Kenya submitted similar proposals at CoP 11 and CoP 12. At the outset, wecongratulate India on not being a co-sponsor this time. The present proposal aims at 20 years
moratorium on trade in ivories. The adoption of this proposal will have extremely negative impacts
on Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, both from a conservation and financial pointof view. The proponents of the proposal, Kenya and Mali need to compensate a loss of revenues
which could otherwise be used for conservation and community development. The proposal
contains a lot of unsubstantiated allegations and its descriptions are highly speculative. For
example, Kenya and Mali estimated 19,000 elephants have been poached annually since CoP 13
based on the mere speculation that authorities seize 15% of illegal shipments of ivory. Theproposal also gives the wrong impression that Kenya and Mali agree to the sale of ivories as
decided at CoP 12. The Standing Committee concluded at its 54th meeting that Japan’s control isadequate. However, Kenya and Mali stress that internal control is inadequate in potential
importing countries such as China and Japan. It is clear that contrary to the impression given in
the proposal, Kenya and Mali continue to oppose the sale of ivories. Kenya and Mali criticizeZimbabwe for its enforcement. The criticism should be cast on CoP 12 which rejected
Zimbabwe’s proposal for political reasons. It is strongly recommended that the proposal berejected.

Prop. 7. Transfer of the Tanzanian population of African elephant Loxodonta africana fromAppendix I to Appendix II (Tanzania)
Withdrawn for unknown reasons.

Prop. 8. Amendment of annotation to the Bolivian population of vicunas Vicugna vicugna (Bolivia)
The management of vicunas has been successful in South America. The adoption of thisproposal will not have any negative impact on animals in the wild because wool is sheared fromlive animals. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 9. Transfer of Barbary red deer Cervus elaphas barbarus from Appendix III to Appendix I(Algeria)
The proposal is poorly documented. There is no domestic, nor international use. The species is4

currently listed in Appendix III. The conservation status will not be affected by listing in Appendix I.
The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 10. Transfer of Cuvier’s gazelle Gazella cuvieri from Appendix III to Appendix I (Algeria)
The proposal is poorly documented. There is no domestic, nor international use. The species iscurrently listed in Appendix III. The conservation status will not be affected by listing in Appendix I.
The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11. Transfer of Dorcas gazelle Gazella dorcas from Appendix III to Appendix I (Algeria)
The proposal is poorly documented. There is no domestic, nor international use. The species iscurrently listed in Appendix III. The conservation status will not be affected by listing in Appendix I.
The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12. Transfer of slender-horned gazelle Gazella leptoceros from Appendix III to Appendix I(Algeria)
The proposal is poorly documented. There is no domestic, nor international use. The species iscurrently listed in Appendix III. The conservation status will not be affected by listing in Appendix I.
The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 13. Transfer of Brazilian population of black caiman Melanosuchus niger from Appendix I toAppendix II (Brazil)
It is clear from the supporting statement that the population is abundant and the species does notmeet Appendix I criteria. Probably, the species has been put inappropriately in Appendix I. Brazil
mentions that the goal of the proposal is to eliminate illegal trade, adding value and additional
incentives to the legal production. One could argue that this is the same as elephants and theproposal should be rejected. However, Brazil’s assumption is valid, applicable to any species
including elephant, hawksbill and black caiman. CITES needs to encourage legal trade and deter
illegal trade. Therefore, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 14. Transfer of the subspecies of Guatemalan beaded lizard Heloderma horridumcharlesbogerti from appendix II to Appendix I (Guatemala)Since this subspecies is listed in Appendix II, trade in the subspecies is already covered byCITES. The subspecies occurs only in Guatemala. If Guatemala wishes to prevent trade in thesubspecies, it is sufficient to refuse the export application. There is no need to transfer it toAppendix I and as such, the proposal should be rejected.

5Prop. 15. Inclusion of porbeagle Lamna nasus in Appendix II (Germany)
Based on the figures in the supporting statement, populations have recently been stable. The
proponent recognizes a difficulty in implementation, suggesting 18 months delay in the entry intoeffect. EU states consume this shark for its meat and a ‘look-alike’ problem need to be addressed.
Instead of listing in Appendix II, CITES Management Authorities should discuss with their own
fisheries counterparts within their own governments with a view to establishing good management
practices including a National Plan of Action for sharks. The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 16. Inclusion of spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias in Appendix II (Germany)
It seems that some stocks have been depleted, but the species as a whole is still large innumbers. The proponent recognizes a difficulty in implementation, suggesting 18 months delay inthe entry into effect. EU states consume this shark for its meat and a ‘look-alike’ problem need tobe addressed. Instead of listing in Appendix II, CITES Management Authorities should discusswith their own fisheries counterparts within their own governments with a view to establishinggood management practices including a National Plan of Action for sharks. The proposal should
be rejected.

Prop. 17. Inclusion of all the species of sawfishes Pristidae in Appendix I (Kenya, USA)
According to the proposal, the major threats are fishing (mainly by-catch) and habitat loss. Alimited number of rostra is in trade. Since targeted fishing for international trade is not a major
threat, Appendix I listing will not have any influence on the conservation status. Sawfishes occurin 87 countries/territories. Kenya and USA consulted range states/territories but only 20 of them
responded. Under the circumstances, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 18. Inclusion of European eel Anguilla anguilla in Appendix II (Germany)
It is clear from the proposal that the population has declined. However, the proposal refers toseveral threats affecting the decline, including eel fisheries, habitat loss, pollution, climate change,
ocean current change and loss of migration routes. Overall management programme is required
for this species. EU should first make its own effort. The number of ranges states is 45 but it is notclear whether these countries support the proposal. In addition, expected workload in
documentation needs to be into consideration. It is recommended that the proposal be rejected.

Prop. 19. Inclusion of Banggai cardinalfish Pterapogon cauderni in Appendix II (USA)This marine fish species is endemic to Indonesia. Indonesia was consulted but it is not clear if it
supports the proposal. Unless Indonesia supports the proposal, it should be rejected.

6Prop. 20. Inclusion of Brazilian populations of Caribbean spiny lobsters Panulirus argus and P.
laevicauda (Brazil)
The management of fisheries species within Brazilian EEZ is under sole responsibility of the state.
The effect of listing these species in Appendix II should be fully into consideration. Brazil isconcerned that the minimum harvest size restriction is not abode by fishermen. It seems that bylisting the species in Appendix II, Brazil asks importing countries to measure every individual
ensuring it is not in the excess of the minimum size limit. Brazil should first make its utmost effort
and should not abuse CITES. Listing Brazil’s population in Appendix II and others not in Appendix
will create enforcement problems. The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 21. Inclusion of all red corals Corallium spp. in Appendix II (USA)The species occur widely from tropical through subtropical to temperate seas. But only
fragmented data are available on overall population status. It seems that USA has consulted
range states including USA. There should be a large number of range states. Only Italy
expressed its support. Under that circumstance, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 22. Deletion of Arizona agave Agave arizonica from Appendix I (USA)
Agave arizonica is a scientific synonym of a hybrid between Agave toumeyana bella and A.
chrysantha. The parental species are not listed in Appendices. Retaining Agave arizonica inAppendix I has no conservation benefit. As such, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 23. Transfer of Dehesa bear-grass Nolina interrata from Appendix I to Appendix II (USA)The species occurs in USA and Mexico. It is protected in the tow countries. A major threat is fire
prevention because flowering depends on fire. There is little demand domestically andinternationally. Appendix II listing is sufficient to cope with unpredictable events. The proposal
should be accepted.

Prop. 24. Deletion of cacti Pereskia spp. and Quiabentia spp. from Appendix II (Argentina)
All Cactacea species have been listed in Appendices as a higher taxon. Because of that, many
common species are subject to CITES regulation, including Pereskia spp. and Quiabentia spp..
This is also the case with other plant such as Orchidaceae spp.. The Article II, paragraph 2(b) of
the text of the Convention stipulates that Appendix II shall include other species which must be
subject to regulation in order that trade in specimens of certain species referred to in
sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph may be brought under effective control. This paragraph 2(b)was refined by Conf. 9.24 that species may be included in Appendix II if the specimens of thespecies in the form in which they are traded resemble specimens of a species included in7

Appendix II or in Appendix I, such that enforcement officers who encounter specimens ofCITES-listed species, are unlikely to be able to distinguish between them. Pereskia andQuiabentia do not resemble other Cactaceae species. Since these species are inappropriately
included in Appendix, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 25. Deletion of cacti Pereskiopsis spp. from Appendix II (Mexico)
The proposal is of the same nature as the previous one. For the same reason, the proposal
should be accepted.

Prop. 26. Amendment of annotations #1, #4 and #8 to plant taxa (Switzerland)
The proposal arose from the work of the Plants Committee following CoP 12 decision. The
adoption of the proposal will reduce the workload faced by CITES authorities. The proposal
should be accepted.

Prop. 27. Amendment of annotation to plant taxa (Switzerland)This proposal is of the same nature as the previous one. For the same reason, the proposal
should be accepted.

Prop. 28. Deletion of Oconee bell Shortia galacifolia from Appendix II (USA)The species is endemic to USA, occurring on the Appalachian Mountains. Cultivated plants are
sold at US markets but there has been no international trade since 1994. It seems that wild plants
are not collected. Deletion of the species from Appendix has no negative impact on the species in
the wild and as such, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 29. Amendment of annotation to spurges Euphorbia species (Switzerland)
All Euphorbia species were originally listed either in Appendix I or Appendix II. Non- succulent
species were deleted from Appendix II in 1997. Still, many species are listed without any
conservation merit. Deletion of these species is necessary to reduce the workload of CITES
authorities. However, the proposal is contrary to the text of the Convention, as is the case withTaxus cuspidata. Switzerland should resubmit a proposal in line with the text of the Convention.
Therefore, the present proposal needs to be rejected.

Prop. 30. Inclusion of Brazil wood Caesalpinia echinata in Appendix II (Brazil)
The species is endemic to Brazil. The major threats are deforestation and illegal logging. These8

activities will occur even after listing the species in Appendix II. Brazil should strengthen its
management and enforcement programme. It is recommended that the proposal be rejected.

Prop. 31. Inclusion of rosewoods Dalbergia retusa and D. granadillo in Appendix II (Germany)
The main reason for the decline in Dalbergia retusa populations is habitat destruction. The
proponent mentions that most internationally traded timber comes from plantations and that inCosta Rica, trade is very small and it is not exported. It seems that international trade in thespecies does not have significant impact on the status of the species in the wild. The proponent isconcerned about tourist trade in carvings. However, such a trade will continue to go uncontrolledeven after listing in Appendix II. It is not clear if the range states in Central America support this
proposal. Under the circumstance and unless the range states support the proposal, it should berejected.

Prop. 32. Inclusion of rosewood Dalbergia stevensonii in Appendix II (Germany)
Little is known of the population size and trends. The major threat is deforestation which is notrelated to international trade. It is not clear whether the range states support the proposal. Unlessthey support the proposal, it should be rejected.

Prop. 33. Inclusion of Spanish cedar Cedrela spp. in Appendix II (Germany)
As is the case with the previous species, the main reason for decline is habitat destruction. Inaddition, the species of great concern, Cedrela odorata is already listed in Appendix III. In
practice, there is no difference between Appendix II and Appendix III listing as far as this species
is concerned. Therefore, the range states can use the existing tool for the control of international
trade. According to the supporting statement, 35 states/territories are range states, but only Brazil
supports the proposal. Unless other range states support the proposal, it should be rejected.

Prop. 34. Amendment of annotation to Orchidaceae species in Appendix II (Switzerland)
All Orchidaceae species are listed either in Appendix I or Appendix II. They are not listed forconservation purposes. The problem with orchids are three-fold: (1) a huge number of species
belong to Orchidaceae, (2) orchids are easy to be propagated artificially and (3) hybridizations iscommon. The proposal aims to simplify CITES-related procedures. The simplification will not
create a negative effect on the wild population and as such, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 35. Amendment of annotation to Orchidaceae species in Appendix II (Switzerland)This proposal is similar to the previous proposal but excluding the genus Miltonia,
Odontoglossum and Onchidium. If the previous proposal is not adopted, this proposal should be9accepted.

Prop. 36. Amendment of the listing of Japanese yew Taxus cuspidata in Appendix II (USA)Asian Taxus species were listed in Appendix II with the annotation that whole artificially
propagated plants in pots or other small containers … are not subject to the provisions of theConvention. The annotation to exclude these specimens is contrary to the text of the Convention.
This proposal was submitted to rectify this problem and is almost the same as the next one.
Either this proposal or next one should be accepted.

Prop. 37. Amendment of the listing of the four Asian yews Taxus chinensis, T. cuspidate, T. fuanaand T. sumatrana (Switzerland)This proposal is designed to have a similar effect to the previous proposal. If the previous one is
not accepted, this proposal should be accepted. We recommend that the listing of Taxus species
be further reviewed by the Plants Committee. Such a review may lead to the deletion of the four
species from Appendix II or inclusion of other species occurring in North America and Europe.

10