GGT'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENT PROPOSALSFOR CONSIDEATION AT THE TWELFTH MEETING
OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO CITES(Santiago, 2002)

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

A publication of the Global Guardian Trust. 2002.

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

SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposal
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
12.10
12.11
12.12
12.13
12.14
12.15
12.16
12.17
12.18
12.19
12.20
12.21
12.22
12.23
12.24
12.25
12.26
12.27
12.28
12.29
12.30
12.31
12.32
12.33
12.34
12.35
12.36
12.37
12.38
12.39
12.40
12.41
12.42
12.43
12.44
12.45
12.46
12.47

Speciesannotation  607
Agapornis spp. et.al.
Tursiops truncatus
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Balaenoptera edeni
Loxodonta africana
Loxodonta africana
Loxodonta africana
Loxodonta africana
Loxodonta africana
Loxodonta africana
Vicugna vicugna
Vicugna vicugna
Vicugna vicugna
Rhea pennata
Amazona auropalliata
Amazona oratrix
Ara couloni
Poicephalus robustus
Platysternon megacephalum
Annamemys annamensis
Heoseys spp.
Hieremys annandalii
Kachuga spp.
Leucocephalon yuwonoi
Mauremys mutica
Orlitia borneensis
Pyxidea mouhotii
Siebenrockiella crassicollis
Eretmochelys imbricata
Chitra spp.
Pelochelys spp.
Hoplodactylus spp. Nultinus spp.
Cnemidophorus heperythrus
Rhincodon typus
Cetorhinus maximus
Hippocampus spp.
Cheilinus undulatus
Dissostichus eleginoides, D. mawsonii
Atrophaneura jophon, A. pandiyana
Papillio spp.
Araucaria araucana
All cactaceae listed in Appendix II
Opuntioideae spp.
Preskioideae spp. et.al.
Sclerocactus nyensis
Sclerocactus spinosior blainei

Amendment
annotation
annotation
II to I
I to II
I to II
annotation
annotation
annotation
annotation
I to II
II to I
I to II
I to II
I to II
I to II
II to I
II to I
II to I
II to I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I to II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
annotation
deletion
deletion
II to I
II to I

Recommendation
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Withdrawn
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No

12.48
12.49
12.50
12.51
12.52
12.53
12.54

Dedleya traskiae
Aloe thorncroftii
Swietenia macrophylla
Orchidaceae spp.
Cistanche deserticola
Lewisis maguirei
Guaiacum spp.

I to II
I to IIII
annotationII
deletion
II

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

INTRODUCTIONCITES has its limitation. It is a convention on international trade in endangered species. As
its name clearly indicates, this is an international trade convention. CITES regulates aninternational trade but has no or little effect on internal matters. Many species have been
listed in CITES Appendix I but most of them are still allowed to be harvested and tradedinternally. Why? Because some of the range states do not think that it is necessary toprohibit internal trade in such species. They may have other species which should be given
more priority. They may also consider that those species are inappropriately listed inAppendix I. Simply, they may not have an intention to totally protect such species.
Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4 stipulates that “when considering proposals to amend theappendices, the Parties shall, in the case of uncertainty, either as regards the status of a
species or as regards the impact of trade on the conservation of a species, act in the bestinterest of the conservation of the species.” Many people tend to interpret that in the bestinterest of the conservation of the species, downlisting from Appendix I to Appendix IIshould be avoided and a transfer to Appendix I be encouraged. This is often not the case.
As long as a species is listed in Appendix II, a Party is required, under Article IV, to besatisfied that the export of specimens of that species will not be detrimental to its survival.
For this purpose, the Party needs to monitor the status of the species in a direct or indirectmanner. If the Party finds any problem, it will rectify such a problem by establishing or
strengthening the management programme including the reduction of its export quota. On
the contrary, an Appendix I listing does not require any management programme. It justrequires the prohibition of the export of the specimens if the intended import is forcommercial purposes.
If a species is listed in Appendix II, the management programme in the range states isunder CITES scrutiny in accordance with Article IV. However, if a species is listed inAppendix I but still subject to considerable exploitation, CITES has little or no influence tobe exerted on the management programme, because international trade does not exist. It
should also be pointed out that an Appendix I listing often creates no economic incentive torange states, thus having a negative impact on conservation. In many cases, the bestinterest of the conservation of the species could be that the population in question betransferred from Appendix I to Appendix II and be treated under an ‘adaptive management
approach’.
With this background and belief, recommendations are made on all amendment proposals.
Parties are requested to take into consideration what is indeed the best interest of theconservation of the species.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Prop. 12.1 Amendment of Annotation  607 (Switzerland)This proposal was submitted by the Depository Government at the request of the Standing
committee and should be accepted.

Prop. 12.2 Addition of annotation to Agapornis spp., Platycercus spp., Barnarudius spp.,
Cyanorhamphus auriceps, C. novaeselandiae, Psittacula eupatria, P. krameri
and Padda oryzivora (Switzerland)
These bird species are easily bred in captivity and produce colour morphs which are
different from the original ones. It seems that controlling the colour morphs do notcontribute to the conservation of the species. The proposals should be accepted.
Furthermore, it is advisable that these species be eventually deleted from CITES
Appendices at future CoPs.

Prop. 12.3 Transfer of Black sea bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus ponticus from
Appendix II to Appendix I (Georgia)
A similar proposal was submitted jointly by Georgia and the US but rejected at CoP 11.
Little is known of the status of this subspecies in the Black Sea. As such, it is impossible tojudge if the subspecies meets the Appendix I criteria. In most of the range states (Russia,
Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Georgia ), any commercial harvest is prohibited. The
subspecies is listed in the Ukraina Red Data Book. Main threats to the subspecies arepollution, incidental catch, lack of food resources and disease as pointed out in the
proposal. It seems unlikely that international trade constitutes a main threat. Under thecircumstance, the proposal should be rejected. It is imperative that the range states should
be encouraged to establish a comprehensive management programme mainly focusing on
habitat degradation.

Prop. 12.4
Transfer of the northern hemisphere populations of Minke whales
Balaenoptera
acutorostrata from Appendix I to Appendix II (Japan)
The population size is very large and the species is classified as 'Lower Risk' (IUCN, 2000).
In addition, the species does not meet any of the CITES criteria for listing in Appendix I.
The proposal proposes that the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) will be used as abase to calculate a safe catch level and an appropriate quota will be established. This is anadequate safeguard to prevent over-harvesting. All precautionary measures are met. One
could argue that the IWC’s decision should be given priority. However, IWC is dysfunctional
and as such, CITES should base its decision on scientific ground rather than politicalconsideration. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 12.5 Transfer of the North Pacific population of Bryde's whales Balaenoptera edeni
from Appendix I to Appendix II (Japan)
The population of the western North Pacific is estimated as about 25,000. Since no hunting
has taken place since 1987, it is obvious that the population is increasing. As is the casewith the Minke whales, the population is robust, the precautionary measures adequate andas such, the proposal be accepted.

Prop. 12.6 Amendment of Annotation  604 for the Botswana population of Africanelephant Loxodonta africana (Botswana)
Prop. 12.7 Amendment of Annotation  604 for the Namibia population of Africanelephant Loxodonta africana (Namibia)
Prop. 12.8 Amendment of Annotation  604 for the South Africa population of Africanelephant Loxodonta africana (South Africa)
Prop. 12.10 Amendment of Annotation  604 for the Zimbabwe population of Africanelephant Loxodonta africana (South Africa)
The populations of African elephants in these four countries are listed in CITES Appendix II.
Since the beginning of this century, the population trends in southern Africa have been well
documented, showing that the population has increased substantially. As These
populations should not have been placed in Appendix I at CoP 7. These four countries havesucceeded in conserving elephants while many of other countries failed. Their efforts
should be rewarded. Adoption of these proposals will further contribute to the conservationof elephants and other wildlife. It will also help alleviate the poverty of rural communities
which live closely with elephants. Their approach is in line with the decisions at UNCED
and WSSD. Therefore, it is very clear that the proposals should be accepted.

Prop. 12.9 Transfer of the Zambia population of African elephant Loxodonta africana from
Appendix I to Appendix II (Zambia)
Zambia is facing a serious difficulty in human-elephant conflicts as is the case with othersouthern African countries. At the suggestion of some NGOs, it burnt 9 tonnes of ivories in1992 immediately before CoP 8, but could not obtain any gains as promised. Zambia isskeptical about the effectiveness of the trade ban on ivory and chose the sustainable use
approach. Justification for downlisting is quite understandable. Zambia's proposal is subject
to Conf. 7.9 process. Irrespective of the recommendations of the Panel of Experts, we
believe that allowing ivory trade will be a long-term solution and as such, the proposal
should be accepted.
Legal trade vs. illegal trade
Opponents of the downlisting proposals insist that re-opening ivory trade will stimulate

illegal trade and poaching, If they insist this hypothesis, they should provide us with
sufficient proof. CITES experience with other species including crocodiles and Asian
bonytongues has clearly shown that contrary to what the opponents believe, downlisting or
opening legal trade will reduce or eliminate illegal activities. It should also be pointed outthat illegal activities exist everywhere in the world. For example, murders are illegal andprohibited strictly but still exist everywhere in the world. Therefore, the presence of illegal
activities itself should not be used as a base for opposing the downlisting proposals.

Prop. 12.11

Transfer of populations of African elephants Loxodonta africana currently
listed in Appendix II to Appendix I (India, Kenya)

This proposal has a procedural flaw. The Standing Committee did not ask the Depositary
Government (Switzerland) to prepare a proposal to transfer the populations back toAppendix I. Therefore, this proposal should be rejected without entering any substantial
discussion. India and Kenya submitted a similar proposal at CoP 11. The proposal
enumerates poaching and smuggling incidences, giving the impression that there aresubstantial illegal activities. According to the proposal, however, the population in entire
Africa is 519,461. The poached elephants represent 0.0008% per year of the total
population. It is also believed that there are 1,000 tonnes of stockpiled ivories in Africa andthey are continuously accumulated from natural mortality and problem animal controls. The
seized ivories are 4,960 kg in total and represents 0.002 % per year of the existing
stockpile. This level of illegal activities will remain even if all populations are listed in CITES
Appendix I and the situation may become even worse. It is strongly recommended that the
proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.12
Prop. 12.13
Prop. 12.14

Transfer of the Catamarca population of vicuna Vicugna vicugna from
Appendix I to Appendix II (Argentina)
Trasnfer of the Bolivia populations of vicuna Vicugna vicugna from Appendix I
to Appendix II (Bolivia)
Trasnfer of the Primera population of vicuna Vicugna vicugna from Appendix I
to Appendix II (Chile)

This species does not meet the criteria for Appendix I listing. The population has
dramatically increased throughout range states. It is important to note that Appendix II
listing dose not mean killing animals because wool is sheared from live animals. One of thepotential threats is competition for land use with domesticated livestock. It is necessary tocreate economic incentives to local communities with a view to contributing to the survivalof vicunas. The proposals should be accepted. We further recommend that all populationsof the species be listed in Appendix II at future meetings.

Prop. 12.15
IITransfer of lesser rheas Rhea pennata pennata from Appendix I to Appendix(Chile)Lesser rheas occur in South America and do not meet the criteria for Appendix I listing.
Chile intends to export only specimens from breeding operations. Since downlisting will nothave any negative impact on the species in the wild, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 12.16

Transfer of yellow-naped parrots Amazona auropalliata from Appendix II toAppendix I (Costa Rica)

The greatest threat is habitat destruction. International trade is not an important factor. In
the proposal, it is mentioned that "the volume of legal international trade is not high at
present". The species is still locally common and does not meet the criteria for Appendix I
listing. Therefore, listing in Appendix I will not improve the situation. Range states such as
Costa Rica need to strengthen its enforcement effort. Appendix I listing is not a solution andas such, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.17

Transfer of yellow-headed parrots Amazona oratrix from Appendix II toAppendix I (Mexico)

It seems that the population has historically declined. However, major threats to the species
are habitat destruction and illegal take of young birds from nests. It is true that there isillegal international trade in the species. However, Appendix I listing would not reduce thelevel of illegal trade. What we need is to strengthen the level of border control, e.g., at theborder between the US and Mexico. Furthermore, Appendix I listing would deprive
authorities/communities of opportunities of using the species sustainablly. Under thecircumstance, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.18

Transfer of blue-headed macaws Ara couloni from Appendix II to Appendix I(Germany)

As the proponent mentions, the species is not endangered according to the 200 IUCN Red
List. There is no data available on population trends and geographic trends. As such, it is
impossible to conclude that the species meets the criteria for listing in Appendix I. It is
recommended that the proposal be rejected.

Prop. 12.19

Transfer of South African population of Cape parrots Poicephalus robustus
from Appendix II to appendix I (South Africa)

The species is fully protected in South Africa. According to the proposal, a major threat ishabitat fragmentation and loss. Concerning illegal trade, national trade is much greater thaninternational trade. Therefore, Appendix I listing will not solve the problem at all. This istotally internal issues and as such the proposal should be rejected. We recommend that an
overall management programme should be established, mainly focusing on the protectionof habitat.

Prop. 12. 20

Inclusion of big-headed turtles Platysternon megacephalum in Appendix II(China, US)

The big-headed turtle is widely distributed in Southeast Asia and China. Little information isavailable on population status and population trends. Although it seems that the species issubject to substantial international trade, there are other major threats such as domestic
trade and habitat degradation. According to the supporting statement, it is most likely thatmany CITES-listed specimens found in south China food markets were imported into China
illegally. Therefore, it may be difficult to control trade in the big-headed turtle even after the
species is listed in CITES Appendix II unless the level of enforcement is substantially
improved. The supporting statement refers to general status of CITES-listed species, which
is not relevant to the species in question. Referring to the opinion of an individual of an
NGO is also irrelevant (see Additional Remark). There is little justification for listing thespecies in Appendix II except that the Technical Workshop in Kunming recommended forlisting by consensus. Unless the above-mentioned concerns are addressed by each range
state, this proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12. 21

Inclusion of Annam pond turtles Annamemys annamensis in Appendix II(China, Germany)

The species occurs in a restricted area in central Viet Nam. It is extremely rare and therecent survey failed to find animals in the wild. The proponents are not range states and assuch, need to ensure that Viet Nam endorses the proposal. The species is easily
recognized. No management measure have taken place. Therefore, Viet Nam should
establish a management programme and the proponents, in particular Germany should
assist them financially and technically. With these conditions, the proposal should be
accepted.

Prop.12.22
Germany)

Inclusion of four species of turtles Heosemys spp. in Appendix II (China,

The Technical Workshop in Kunming recommended for Appendix II listing. The species
occurs in a restricted area in Myanmar. The proposal is supported by a range state,
Myanmar. The species is Critically Endangered according to the 2000 IUCN Red List. It isclear that the species meets the criteria for Appendix II listing. The proposal should be
accepted. It is strongly recommended that Myanmar establish a management programmein co-operation with Germany and China.

Prop. 12. 23
II

Inclusion of yellow-headed temple turtles Hieremys annandalii in Appendix(China, US)

The yellow-headed temple turtle is widely distributed in Southeast Asia. Neither of the
proponent countries (China and US) is a range state of this species though the proposal
referrs to the national legal status of China. Little information is available on population
status and population trends. Although it seems that the species is subject to substantial
international trade, there are other major threats such as domestic trade, subsistence use
and habitat degradation. It may be difficult to control trade in the yellow-headed temple
turtle even after the species is listed in CITES Appendix II unless the level of enforcement issubstantially improved in the range states and main consumer country, China. The
supporting statement refers to the general status of CITES-listed species, which is not
relevant to the species in question. Referring to the opinion of an individual of an NGO is
also irrelevant (see Additional Remark). There is little justification for listing the species inAppendix II except that the Technical Workshop in Kunming recommended for listing byconsensus. Unless the above-mentioned concerns are addressed by each range state, this
proposal should be rejected.

Prop.12.24

Inclusion of six species of turtles Kachuga spp. in Appendix II (India, USA)The genus Kachuga consists of seven species. Kachuga tecta is already listed in Appendix
I. Listing the remaining six species will enable all Kachuga species to be listed in CITES
Appendices. It seems that some of the six species meet the criteria for Appendix II listing.
Other can be listed for a 'look-alike reason'. The proposal should be accepted. However,
the range states should establish a management programme and be assisted by the US.

Prop.12.25

Inclusion of Sulawesi forest turtles Leucocephalon yuwonoi in Appendix II(China, Germany)

The Technical Workshop in Kunming recommended for Appendix II listing. The species
occurs in a restricted area in Indonesia. The proposal is supported by a range state,
Indonesia. The species is Critically Endangered according to the 2000 IUCN Red List. It isclear that the species meets the criteria for Appendix II listing. The proposal should be
accepted. It is strongly recommended that Indonesia establish a management programmein co-operation with Germany and China.

Prop. 12. 26

Inclusion of yellow pond turtles Mauremys mutica in Appendix II (China, US)

The yellow pond turtle is widely distributed in China, Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam. The
supporting statement is poorly documented because most of the description are related to
the general status of turtles and tortoises. Little information is available on population status
and population trends. The main threats are domestic trade, water pollution, subsistence
use and habitat degradation and international trade is not significant compared to thesethreats. The species does not meet Resolution 9.24, Annex 2a, A and B i) criteria. The
supporting statement refers to general status of CITES-listed species, which is not relevant

to the species in question. Referring to the opinion of an individual of an NGO is also
irrelevant (see Additional Remark). No information is provided on the species' status in
Japan. There is no justification for listing the species in Appendix II. For above-mentioned
reasons, listing the species in Appendix II will not contribute to the conservation of thespecies. Therefore, this proposal should be rejected.

Prop.12.27

Inclusion of Malayan giant turtles Orlitia borneensis in Appendix II (China,
Germany)

The Technical Workshop in Kunming recommended for Appendix II listing. The distributionof the species is restricted, occurring in Indonesia and Malaysia only. The species isEndangered according to the 2000 IUCN Red List. It seems that the species meets thecriteria for Appendix II listing. The proposal should be accepted. At the same time, it isstrongly recommended that Indonesia and Malaysia establish a management programme in
co-operation with Germany and China.

Prop. 12. 28

Inclusion of keeled box turtles Pyxidea mouhotii in Appendix II (China, US)

The keeled box turtle is widely distributed in China, India, Lao, Myanmar and Vietnam. Little
information is available on population status and population trends though it is inferred thatthe population has been depleted. Major threats are domestic trade, subsistence use andhabitat degradation. The species in not protected in China and India whereas export of
turtles is prohibited in Myanmar and Vietnam. Lao is not a Party to CITES. According to the
supporting statement, it is most likely that many CITES-listed specimens found in South
China food markets were imported into China illegally. Therefore, it may be difficult tocontrol trade in the keeled box turtles even after the species is listed in CITES Appendix II
unless the level of enforcement is substantially improved. The supporting statement refers
to the general status of CITES-listed species, which is not relevant to the species inquestion. Referring to the opinion of an individual of an NGO is also irrelevant (seeAdditional Remark). There is little justification for listing the species in Appendix II exceptthat the Technical Workshop in Kunming recommended for listing by consensus. Unless theabove-mentioned concerns are addressed by each range state, this proposal should be
rejected.

Prop. 12. 29(China, US)

Inclusion of black marsh turtles Siebenrockiella crassicollis in Appendix II

The black marsh turtle is widely distributed in Southeast Asia from Myanmar to Indonesia.
Neither of the proponent countries (China and US) is a range state of the species. No
information is available on the population status in Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore andVietnam. The population of Cambodia which may be the most important population ispotentially large. It is uncommon in Indonesia but not uncommon in Thailand. Population
trends are unknown for most of the range states. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude thatthe species meets the criteria for appendix II listing. Although it seems that the species issubject to substantial international trade, there are other major threats such as domestic
trade and habitat degradation. According to the supporting statement, it is most likely thatmany CITES-listed specimens found in South China food markets were imported into China
illegally. Therefore, it may be difficult to control trade in the black marsh turtle even after the
species is listed in CITES Appendix II unless the level of enforcement is substantially
improved. The supporting statement refers to the general status of CITES-listed species,
which is not relevant to the species in question. Referring to the opinion of an individual ofan NGO is also irrelevant (see Additional Remark). There is little justification for listing thespecies in Appendix II except that the Technical Workshop in Kunming recommended forlisting by consensus. Unless the above-mentioned concerns are addressed by each range
state, this proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.30

Transfer of the Cuban waters population of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys
imbricata from Appendix I to Appendix II (Cuba)

We regret to note that this proposal has been withdrawn. Adoption of the proposal could
have contributed to the conservation of sea turtles in Cuba and elsewhere in the
Caribbeans and have become an exemplary model for the conservation of marine turtles.

Prop. 12. 31

Inclusion of narrow-headed softshell turtles Chitra spp. in Appendix II(China, US)

The narrow-headed softshell turtles are widely distributed in Southeast Asia (Indonesia,
Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar) and South Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan).
Chitra chitra is rare in most of the range states. Little information is available on population
trends but the species is experiencing a decline in several areas. Although it seems that the
species is subject to substantial international trade, there are other major threats such as
domestic trade and habitat degradation. According to the supporting statement, it is most
likely that many CITES-listed specimens found in South China food markets were imported
into China illegally. Therefore, it may be difficult to control trade in the narrow-headed
turtles even after the species are listed in CITES Appendix II unless the level ofenforcement is substantially improved. The supporting statement refers to the general
status of CITES-listed species, which is not relevant to the species in question. Referring tothe opinion of an individual of an NGO is also irrelevant (see Additional Remark). There islittle justification for listing the species in Appendix II except that the Technical Workshop in
Kunming recommended for listing by consensus. Unless the above-mentioned concerns
are addressed by each range state, this proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12. 32

Inclusion of the Genus Pelochelys spp. in Appendix II (China, US)

The giant sofshell turtles are widely distributed in Papua New Guinea, Southeast Asia,
South Asia and China. Little information is available on population status and population

trends. Although it seems that the species are subject to substantial international trade,
there are other major threats such as domestic trade and habitat degradation. According to
the supporting statement, it is most likely that many CITES-listed specimens found in South
China food markets were imported into China illegally. Therefore, it may be difficult tocontrol trade in the turtles even after the genus is listed in CITES Appendix II unless thelevel of enforcement is substantially improved. The supporting statement refers to thegeneral status of CITES-listed species, which is not relevant to the species in question.
Referring to the opinion of an individual of an NGO is also irrelevant (see Additional
Remark). There is little justification for listing the species in Appendix II except that theTechnical Workshop in Kunming recommended for listing by consensus. Unless theabove-mentioned concerns are addressed by each range state, this proposal should be
rejected.

Prop. 12.33

Inclusion of geckos Hoplodactylus spp. and Nultinus spp. in Appendix II (New
Zealand)

The species are endemic to New Zealand. Little information is available on population
status and population trends. It is impossible to conclude that the species meets the
Appendix II listing criteria. The species is already protected under the New Zealand
regulation. It is true that there are some illegal trade. However, Appendix II listing would notsolve this problem. As such, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.34

Deletion of orange-throated whiptail lizard Cnemidophorus heperythrus from
Appendix II (US)The species is distributed in the US and Mexico. The very small number of specimens havebeen exported since 1980. There is no known illegal trade in the US or Mexico. It is clearthat international trade is not a threat for the species and as such, the proposal should be
accepted.

CITES and FAO
A series of meetings were held by FAO in relation to CITES listing criteria. The FAO/COFI
Sub-Committee of Fish Trade was held in Bremen in February 2002 and recommended theExpert Consultation be convened to address i) 'look-alike' clause, ii) administrative andmonitoring implications of listing, iii) 'introduction from the sea' and iv) legal implication. The
FAO Sub-Committee further requested that FAO and CITES establish an MOU. For
consideration at CoP 12, a draft Resolution has been submitted by the US calling for theestablishment of an MOU. Most of the Parties to CITES are also members of FAO. They
should be consistent between FAO and CITES. It is necessary to wait for the results ofdiscussions at FAO and for the establishment of an MOU. Therefore, it is premature toconsider the proposals related to fishery species. It should also be pointed out that CITES
has many species which should be provided with more priority. Rather than dealing withthese fishery species under CITES, we need to make efforts enhancing FAO's
effectiveness. Therefore, all these fishery-related proposals should be rejected.

Prop. 12.35

Inclusion of whale sharks Rhincodon typus in Appendix II (India, Philippines)

A very similar proposal, perhaps prepared by the same author, was submitted by the US for
consideration at CoP 11 and was rejected. Though more data are provided compared to theprevious proposal, there is still little information on biological parameters. The proponent
needs to provide more information to justify its proposal. Under the circumstance, there isno scientific ground to support this proposal. The proponent concluded that the species
meets the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix II. However, based on the information
provided in its supporting statement, it is difficult to so conclude. As such, the proposal
should be rejected.

Prop. 12.36

Inclusion of basking sharks Cetorhinus maximus in Appendix II (UK)

Although this proposal is seemingly well documented in particular with regard to the
population trends in the North Atlantic, there are no comprehensive assessments in the restof its range. It is true that the number of basking sharks caught has declined. However,data are not available against 'catch per unit effort'. Perhaps, this resulted from theabandonment of fisheries targeted for this species. On the other hand, the data for New
Zealand indicate a marked increase in landings in recent years. It seems unlikely that the
species meets the criteria for Appendix II listing. The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.37

Inclusion of all seahorses species Hippocampus spp. in Appendix II (US)The purpose of the proposal is to include all species (32 spp.) in the genus Hippocampus in
Appendix II. It seems that some of them meet the criteria for Appendix II listing. However,the data provided are very anecdotal. Listing in Appendix II would create serious
implementation/enforcement problem as well as difficulty for local communities. Since
economic implication is involved, these species should better be dealt with by FAO. The
proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.38

Inclusion of Napoleon fish Cheilinus undulatus in Appendix II (US)The distribution of the species is widespread throughout the Indo-Pacific region. No global
population assessments has been made though some local populations show low density
and may have declined. IUCN assessed the species' status against the 1994 Red List
criteria and listed the species as 'Vulnerable'. However, it seems that the species does notmeet the CITES listing criteria. There is no convincing reason why the US submitted the
proposal without waiting for the establishment of an MOU. As such, it is premature to list
this species and the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.39
inInclusion of two toothfish species Dissostichus eleginoides and D. mawsonii
Appendix II (Australia)

The distribution of the species is widespread. The species do not meet the criteria for
Appendix II listing. There is a management body to deal with the species, i.e., CCAMLR.
The proponent is its Depository Government. Instead of using CITES. Australia as a
Depository Government should make effort ensuring that IUU issues are solved by
CCAMLR. Also, CCAMLR should invite important non-members to become members of
CCAMLR. Therefore, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.40

Inclusion of Sri Lankan rose Atrophaneura jophon and A. pandiyana inAppendix II (Germany)

These two butterfly species are endemic to Sri Lanka. The proposal is poorly documented.
There is little or no information on population status and population trends. It is impossible
to conclude that the species meet the criteria for Appendix II listing. A major threat is habitat
destruction. The proposal should be rejected. Germany needs to assist Sri Lanka to takeconservation measures for these species.

Prop. 12.41

Inclusion of swallowtail butterflies Papilio aristophontes, P. nireus and P. sosia
in Appendix II (Germany)

These swallowtails are endemic to Comoros. The proposal is poorly documented. There islittle or no information on population status and population trend. It is impossible toconclude that the species meet the criteria for Appendix II listing. A major threat is habitat
destruction. The range state, Comoros is opposed to this proposal. The proposal should be
rejected.

Prop. 12.42

Inclusion of monkey puzzle trees Araucaria araucana in Appendix I(Argentina)

This proposal has been subject to considerable discussions since the previous CoP. The
proposal was put to vote through postal procedures. It seems that the Philippines, which
opposed that proposal, has no cultivated population. In addition, the Plants Committee
supported the proposal. Therefore, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 12.43

Amendment of the annotation  608 for all Cactaceae species listed inAppendix II (Switzerland)

The proponent asks artificially propagated mutants to be exempted from CITES regulation.
Adoption of the amendment has no impact on wild populations. On the contrary, adoption

will remove implementation burdens from CITES officials so that such resources can beused for other species of more conservation priority. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 12.44

Deletion of prickly pear cacti, Opuntioideae spp. from Appendix II(Switzerland)International trade in wild-collected specimens is thought to be non-existent. Adoption of
the proposal will have no negative impact on populations in the wild. The proposal shouldbe accepted.

Prop. 12.45

Deletion of leaf-bearing cacti, Pereskioideae spp., Pereskiopsis spp. andQuiabentia spp. from Appendix II (Switzerland)

The species do not meet the criteria for Appendix II listing. The level of international trade inwild-collected specimens is extremely low. Deletion of the species from Appendix II will nothave any negative impact on the wild populations. Therefore, the proposal should be
accepted.

Prop. 12.46

Transfer of Tonopah fishhook cactus Sclerocactus nyensis from Appendix II toAppendix l (US)The proposal is poorly documented. The species occurs in a restricted area in Nevada.
There is no information on population status, population trends and geographic trends. The
species is protected by the US Lacey Act. There is no documentation of illegal international
trade in wild-collected specimens from the US. It is premature to adopt the proposal. The
US is encouraged to collect more information and as such, the proposal should be
rejected.

Prop. 12.47

Transfer of desert valley fishhook cactus Sclerocactus spinosior blainei from
Appendix II to appendix I (US)The proposal is poorly documented. The sub-species occurs in relatively restricted areas.
There is no information on population status, population trends and geographic trends. The
sub-species is protected by the US Lacey Act. There is no documentation of illegal
international trade in wild-collected specimens from the US. It is premature to adopt the
proposal. The US is encouraged to collect more information and as such, the proposal
should be rejected.

Prop. 12.48

Transfer of Santa Barbara Island dudleya Dudleya traskiae from Appendix I toAppendix II (US)The species is endemic to Santa Barbara Island and is well managed. Trade is not a threat
for wild populations. It can easily be propagated artificially. A similar proposal was submitted
by Switzerland at CoP 11 at the request of the Plants Committee. The proposal should be
accepted.

Prop. 12.49

Transfer of aloes Aloe thorncroftii from Appendix I to Appendix II (South
Africa)The species is restricted to one Province in South Africa. It seems that population size isstable. What is more important is that there seems no international trade and a transfer toAppendix II will not have any negative impact on the species. It is recommended that the
proposal be accepted.

Prop. 12.50

Inclusion of big-leaf mahogany Swietenia macrophylla in Appendix II(Nicaragua)

The species is widely distributed in Central and South America. It seems that the population
has declined historically. However, there are no detailed studies on population status. Brazil,
the largest range state, is opposed to the proposal. In addition, the species is already listed
in Appendix III. There is no practical difference between Appendix II and Appendix III
listings. The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 12.51
listedAmendment of the annotation to some orchid species, Orchidaceae spp.
in Appendix II (US)This proposal refers to the artificially propagated specimens of hybrids of some orchid
species. Amendment of the annotation will have no negative impact on the species in thewild. Adoption of the proposal will remove implementation burdens. The proposal should be
accepted.

Prop. 12.52

Deletion of the annotation to desert living cistanchea Cistanche deserticola inAppendix II (China)

The species was listed in Appendix II at CoP 11. However, there was a mistake in the
annotation, because the species does not have roots. This mistake should be corrected but
the proponent suggests that the annotation should be deleted in its entirety. Therefore, theproposal should be rejected as it stands.

Prop. 12.53

Deletion of Maguire's bitter-root Lewisis maguirei from Appendix II (US)The species is distributed only in Nevada, the US. The species is protected from mostthreats and international trade is not a threat. Its trade volume is very low and there was noexport application in the last five years. It is clear that deletion from Appendix II will have no
negative impact. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 12.54

Inclusion of lignum-vitae Guaiacum spp. in Appendix II (Germany)

The genus occurs in Mexico, Guatemala and the US. There is insufficient information on
population status, population trends, and geographical trends. Further studies are required
to judge if the genus meets the criteria for Appendix II listing. It is premature to list thegenus in Appendix II and as such, the proposal should be rejected.