GGT’S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE AMENDMENT PROPOSALSFOR CONSIDERATION AT THE ELEVENTH MEETING
OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO CITES(Gigiri, 2000)

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

A publication of the Global Guardian Trust. 2000.

Global Guardian Trust
Toranomon 3-7-5, Minato-ku,
Tokyo 105-0001
Japan

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. 11.1: Deletion of Ceropegia spp. from Appendix II (Switzerland)
Prop. 11.2: Deletion of Frerea indica from Appendix II (Australia)
Prop. 11.3: Deletion of Byblis spp. from Appendix II (Australia)
Prop. 11.4: Transfer of Disocactus macdougallii from Appendix II to Appendix I(Switzerland)
Prop. 11.5: Transfer of Sclerocactus mariposensis from Appendix I to Appendix II(Switzerland)
Prop. 11.6: Deletion of Cephalotus follicularis from appendix II (Australia)
Prop. 11.7: Transfer of Dudleya Diudleia stolonifera and D. traskiae from Appendix I toAppendix II (Switzerland)
Prop. 11.8: Change the current listings of Tree ferns a) Cyatheaceae spp. to Cyathea spp.
and b) Dicksoniaceae spp. to Dicksonia spp. and Cibotium barometz (Switzerland)
Prop. 11.9: Deletion of Oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia from Appendix II (Switzerland)
Prop. 11.10: Deletion of Lewisia cotyledon, L. maquirei and L. serrata from Appendix II(Switzerland)
Prop. 11.11: Deletion of Darlingtonia californica from Appendix II (Switzerland)
These proposals are submitted based on the recommendations made by the CITES Plants
Committee and all these proposals should in principle be accepted.

Prop. 11.12: Maintenance of the Tanzanian population of the Nile crocodile Crocodylus
nilotics in Appendix II (Tanzania)
The Tanzanian population was first transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II in 1985. It
meets the criteria for Appendix II listing under Resolution Conf. 9.24. Tanzania is asking forincreased quota of wild animals. Annual take of 1,600 out of more than 70,000 animals in
the wild will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. Therefore, this proposal
should be accepted.

Prop. 11.13: Transfer of Asian pangolins Manis crassicaudata, M. pentadactyla and M.
javanica from Appendix II to Appendix I (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, USA)All these species are listed as ‘Lower Risk’ under IUCN Red List (1996). The proponents
mention that no information is available on the population levels of any of the Asian
pangolins. In the supporting statement, no information is provided to prove that the species
meets the criteria for listing in Appendix I. Nevertheless, it is considered that the population
has decreased. However, it seems that remedial measures have been and are being taken
by many range states. Manis javanica which is the rarest of the three species is protectedin most of the range states. Laos, non-Party to CITES, can be singled out as a problem
country. This problem should be brought to the attention of the Standing Committee which
may result in the recommendation to suspend trade with Laos. The supporting statementpresents many cases where illegal trade might occur. However, this will not be solved bylisting the species in Appendix I because such illegal trade would occur even after listing inAppendix I. Also, Parties need to wait the outcome of the significant trade review process of
the Animals Committee under which the three species are subject to review. In conclusion,
there is no justification to list the three species of Asian pangolins in Appendix I and the
proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.14: Transfer of Black sea bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus ponticus from
Appendix II to Appendix I (Georgia, USA)
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 state (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. It seems unlikely thatinternational trade constitutes a main threat. Under the circumstance, the proposal should
be rejected. At the same time, the range states should be encouraged to establish, with theassistance of the USA, the comprehensive management programme mainly focusing on
habitat degradation.

Prop. 11.15: Transfer of Eastern North Pacific stock of Grey whale Eschrinichtius robustus
from Appendix I to Appendix II (Japan)
Sufficient data are available on population size and trends. International Whaling
Commission (IWC) concluded that its population is around 26,000. It seems that the
population is approaching its carrying capacity. This stock does not meet the biologicalcriteria for Appendix I listing. The US removed in 1994 the gray whale from its Endangered
Species Act. Therefore, the proposal should be accepted and this stock be transferred from
Appendix I to Appendix II.

Prop. 11.16: Transfer of the Southern Hemisphere stock of Minke whale Balaenoptera
acutorostrata from Appendix I to Appendix II (Japan)
Prop. 11.17: Transfer of the Okhotsk Sea – West Pacific stocks of Minke whale
Balaenoptera acutorostrata from Appendix I to Appendix II (Japan)
The comprehensive assessment of whale stocks are completed by the IWC ScientificCommittee on the Southern Hemisphere stock (761,000) and Okhotsk Sea – West Pacificstock (25,000). The population size is very large and the species is not listed in the IUCNRed List (1996) except the stocks of Arctic Sea, Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea
which are categorised as “Lower Risk”. In addition, the species does not meet any of the
CITES criteria for listing in Appendix I. The proposal does not propose a specific quota.
However, in Section 3.4, the proponent mentions that “the Revised Management Procedurecompleted by the Scientific Committee of the IWC will be used for the quota calculations”.
This should be an adequate safeguard to prevent over-harvesting. It should be pointed outthat the Scientific Committee of the IWC reported to its plenary that the annual harvest of
2,000 Minke whales for 100 years from the Antarctic would not be detrimental to the stockof Minke whales. The proposal does not specify the name of importing countries. However,
it is believed that Japan is the only country which goes whaling in the Southern Hemisphereand Pacific. Internal control system in Japan is well established and sufficient to detect
illegal trade. One could argue that the IWC’s decision should be given priority. However,CITES should base its decision on scientific ground rather than political consideration. The
proposals should be accepted.

Prop. 11.18: Transfer of the North-east Atlantic and North Atlantic central stocks of Minke
whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata from Appendix I to Appendix II (Norway)
The stocks of the Minke whales proposed by Norway do not meet and have never met thebiological criteria for Appendix I listing. The West Greenland population is currently listed inAppendix II in spite of the fact that its population is far less than those of the Northeast
Atlantic stock and North Atlantic Central stock. Together with Prop. 11 and Prop. 12 on
Minke whales, this proposal submitted by Norway should be accepted.

Prop. 11.19: Deletion of Brown hyaena Parahyaena brunnea from Appendix II(Namibia, Switzerland)
Switzerland submitted a proposal at CoP 9 to transfer the species from Appendix I toAppendix II with the ultimate goal of the total removal from CITES appendices, which was
adopted by consensus. Since its downlisting, there has been no negative impact on thestatus of the species. International trade in the brown hyaena is almost non-existent andthere is no need to retain this species in Appendix II. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.20: Transfer the South African population of African elephant Loxodonta africanafrom Appendix I to Appendix II (South Africa)
This proposal was submitted in accordance with Resolutions Conf. 7.9 and Conf. 9.24, andas such, is subject to the creation of a Panel of Experts. It should be pointed out that thePanel of Experts reached favourable conclusions at CoP 8 and CoP 9 when South Africa
submitted similar proposals. Since the beginning of this century, the population trends inSouth Africa have been well documented, showing that the population has increased
exponentially. As did with Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe at CoP 10, the South African
population of elephants should be transferred to Appendix II. The proponent does not
specify the name of the importing country. However, it is mentioned that trade in ivory will
be with only one importing country which is most probably Japan. It should be emphasizedthat the Standing Committee unanimously agreed at its 41st meeting that the control

system in Japan is adequate. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.21: Maintenance of the population of African elephant Loxodonta africanaof Botswana in Appendix II (Botswana)
Prop. 11.22: Maintenance of the population of African elephant Loxodonta africanaof Namibia in Appendix II (Namibia)
Prop. 11.23: Maintenance of the population of African elephant Loxodonta africanaof Zimbabwe in Appendix II (Zimbabwe)
These three populations were transferred to Appendix II at CoP 10 and subsequently, an
experimental ivory trade took place in 1999. All proceeds derived from the sale of ivory
have been allocated for conservation and development of local community which live withelephants. This is a good model for other range states and for other species. To further
encourage the conservation effort made by Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, these three
proposals should be accepted.

Prop. 11.24: Transfer of Appendix I of the populations of African elephant Loxodonta
africana currently listed in Appendix II (India, Kenya)
This proposal has a procedural flaw. At its 41st meeting, the Standing Committee wassatisfied that all conditions were met and approved an experimental trade between thethree southern African countries and Japan. At its 42nd meeting, the Standing Committee
approved the CITES Secretariat’s report and did not ask the Depository Government(Switzerland) to prepare a proposal to transfer the populations back to Appendix I. In
addition, the range states (Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe) were not consulted.
According to the proposal, the proponents “remain unsatisfied that it is sufficient to prevent
illegal taken ivory from other range states from entering” Japan. It is difficult to conclude likethis because although the proposal provides many cases of illegal ivory seizures, no
seizure was made on ivory destined for Japan. In Section 3.4.1, it is mentioned that “theCITES Panel of Experts suggested that in Japan there is a possibility that reopening a legal
trade in ivory will make it easier for illegal ivory to be traded (CITES Panel of Experts,
1992)”. Not only this hypothesis is untested, but also this remark is out-of-date. In Section
4.3.2, the proponents say that “the units of measurement used to record ivory incommerce differ between manufactures and retailers, with manufacturers required to record
ivory by weight while retailers record the number and size of pieces. Such a system make it
difficult to trace ivory through the chain of commerce”. However, it is not difficult to traceivory through the chain of commerce. The number and size of pieces can easily beconverted to weight. It is just a matter of calculation. In Section 4.3.2, the proponents saythat there are possibly over 40,000 ivory retailers in Japan and that it would take over 830
years to inspect each dealership once. It seems that the proponents have no knowledge
about the situation in Japan. According to MITI (CITES MA of Japan), 40,000 retailers
include those selling ivory hankos and those selling non-ivory hankos. MITI estimated thatthe number of retailers for ivory hankos is around 10,000, not 40,000. MITI has nine

regional offices in Japan. If four premises are inspected per week, it takes only 5 years to
inspect each dealership once, not 830 years. In Section 5.1, the proponents say that “Asianivory is said to be particularly attractive to Japanese ivory dealers” and continue that “inIndia, the years 1996 – 1998 saw escalation in elephant poaching”. This paragraph is highly
misleading. Many Japanese dealers tend to call hard African elephant ivory “indo” and soft
African elephant ivory “shiro (white)”. If Japanese ivory dealers indeed wish to use Asianivory, there should have been many seizures on Asian ivory in Japan and elsewhere in Asia.
However, such seizure did not happen. This paragraph gives the impression that if ivory
dealers are asked, they would buy Asian ivory. In Section 6, it is mentioned that “twocountries Namibia and South Africa declined the invitation” and that “Namibia andZimbabwe did not respond to the invitation”. These two sentences are contradictory. No
doubt, this proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.25: Amendment of annotation °604concerning Appendix II populations of
Loxodonta africana (Switzerland)This proposal is of technical nature and should be accepted.

Prop. 11.26: Transfer of the Australian population of Dugong Dugong dugon to Appendix I(Australia)
The Australian proposal is asking the Conference of the Parties to adopt a transfer of its
dugong population from Appendix II to Appendix I on the basis of Resolution Conf. 9.24,
Annex 3 that states according to the proponent that “wherever possible, split-listings (where
different populations of a species are listed on different Appendices) should be avoided”.
This is not true. Actually, the operative paragraph e) of Resolution Conf. 9.24 says that“species should be included in more than one appendix at the same time, and higher taxa
should be included in the appendices, only if the species or higher taxa concerned satisfy
the relevant criteria listed in Annex 3”. Annex 3 never says that “wherever possible,
split-listings should be avoided”. Instead, it stipulates that “listing of a species in more than
one appendices should be avoided in general in view of the enforcement problems it
creates. When split listing does occur, this should generally be on the basis of national orcontinental populations, rather than subspecies”. The Australian proposal is not based on
the fact and is misleading. According to the Australian proposal, its population of dugongdoes not meet the biological criteria for listing in Appendix I. The proposal explicitly
mentions that “the Australian population is not endangered”. There have not been any
enforcement problem through the species being split-listed. Therefore, there is no
justification for transferring its population from Appendix II to Appendix I. It should bepointed out that at the request of the Australian Government, the Australian population of
Crocodylus porosus was transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II more than a decadeago. Prior to that transfer, only the Papua New Guinea’s population was listed in Appendix
II while all other populations were listed in Appendix I. This split-listings have never created
enforcement problems for other countries in spite of the fact that a large number ofcrocodile skins are commercially exported from Australia every year. The proposal should
be rejected.

Prop. 11.27: Transfer of all populations of Vicuna Vicugna vicugna from Appendix I toAppendix II (Bolivia)
Prop. 11.28: Deletion of the zero quota for trade in cloth made with wool sheared from live
animals of the populations of Vicugna vicugna included in Appendix II at CoP 10(Bolivia)
The species does not meet the criteria for Appendix I listing. The population has
dramatically increased in all range states. It is important to note that Appendix II listing does
not mean the killing of 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. Including all Bolivian populations in Appendix II will make the authorities toenforce the regulation more easily. The proposals should be accepted.

Prop. 11.29: Transfer of all populations of Musk deers Moschus spp. currently in Appendix II
to Appendix I (India, Nepal, USA)The population size of Moschus spp. may have declined substantially. However, thespecies are not threatened with extinction because the absolute population is still large.
China as a main range state of the species is opposed to the proposed transfer of thespecies to Appendix I. The opinion of the range state should be respected. Appendix I
listing will not solve the problem because there will be a demand for musk even after
Appendix I listing. CITES is not designed to control internal trade. Appendix I listing would
deprive authorities/communities of incentives for the management of musk deer. The
proposal should be rejected. However, remedial actions need to be taken which include theenhancement of enforcement effort both in exporting and importing countries. China andRussian Federation should be encouraged to develop a comprehensive management
programme for these species and the proponents of the proposal (US and India) should
assist China and Russia in this regard.

Prop. 11.30: Inclusion in Appendix I of all subspecies of Urial Ovis vignei not yet listed in the
appendices (Germany)
It seems that this proposal was originally prepared by the US which decided not to submit it
to CoP 11 for unknown reasons. The comments made by the range states are negative inAppendix I listing. Most factors affecting the urial is of internal nature, i.e., habitat
destruction and poaching. International trade has had less impact and as such, Appendix I
listing will not improve the situation. This proposal is opposed by most range states andshould be rejected. Appendix II listing might be more appropriate at this stage.

Prop. 11.31: Transfer of the Argentinean population of Lesser rhea Rhea pennata pennatafrom Appendix I to Appendix II (Argentina)
From this well documented proposal, it is obvious that the subspecies subject to this
proposal is abundant with the estimation of 1.7 million approximately. It is clear that thesubspecies does not meet the criteria for Appendix I listing and should not have been listed
in Appendix I. The management programme contemplated by Argentina is adequate toensure that Appendix II listing will not be detrimental to the subspecies in question. The
proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.32: Transfer of the North American population of Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus from
Appendix I to Appendix II (USA)The North American breeding population is estimated to be about 3,000 pairs. It seems
unlikely that this population meets the Appendix I criteria. The proponent mentions thatsince 1984, all gyrfalcons exported from Canada and the US for international trade havebeen captive bred birds. Because the proponent proposes a zero export quota, a transfer of
the North American populations will not result in international trade in wild-caught birds.
Under the circumstance, the transfer to Appendix II should be accepted.

Prop. 11.33: Transfer of Horned parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus cornutus from Appendix II
to Appendix I (France)
Prop. 11.34: Transfer of Horned parakeet Eunymphicus cornutus uveanensis from
Appendix
II to Appendix I (France)
The species Eunymphicus cornutus occurs in New Caledonia and Loyalty. The subspecies
Eunymphicus cornutus cornutus occurs in New Caledonia and another subspecies
Eunymphicus cornutus uveaensis in Loyalty. The population of Eunymphicus cornutus
cornutus is not small (2,000 – 10,000) according to the supporting statement. There is no
management measure for this subspecies but the proponent is asking to list thissubspecies in Appendix I for look-like reason. The population of Eunymphicus cornutus
uveaensis is small (100 – 800 depending on researcher) according to the supportingstatement. There is the management measure for this subspecies which is fully protected.
However, as the proponent admits, the major threat to this subspecies is predation by bothindigenous and invasive predators. The volume of international trade is very small. The real
problem with this species is totally internal matter. There is no reason nor justification why
this subspecies must be listed in Appendix I. The proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.35: Inclusion of Hwamei Garrulax canorus in Appendix II (China)

The population size is estimated 1 to 1.2 million. The proponent says in Section 3, Utilizationand trade, that a total of 1.7 to 1.8 million would be taken from the wild each year. If this is thecase and if its clutch size is taken into consideration, it is unlikely that the population size in
China is only 1 to 1.2 million. It must be more. The species is not protected in China except
in Henan and Hubei. Taking into account the number of birds taken from the wild each year,
China needs to develop a management programme for the species including theestablishment of the harvest quota. Such a management programme is a top priority. As thesecond measure, Appendix II listing would also help prevent illegal trade since there seems
to be illegal trade. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.36: Inclusion of Box turtle Cuora spp. in Appendix II (Germany, USA)
There is a high demand for these species for medicine, food and pet, nationally andinternationally. Uncontrolled, significant international trade has been detrimental to thestatus of these species. Not all range States responded to the proponent's enquiry, butmany of the range States expressed their support for this proposal. It is obvious that
Appendix II listing will enable the authorities to monitor trade volume and help enhance theenforcement efficiency. Therefore, this proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.37: Inclusion of Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata in Appendix II (USA)
There is little information on the population trends. But it is known that legal and illegal
trade have flourished. In many of its range, the spotted turtle is protected and the range
States, i.e., Canada and USA, support this proposal. There are a series of threats to thespecies and over-collection for international and internal trade have been pointed out as
one of the major threats. Listing in Appendix II will assist the authorities in enhancing its
conservation effort. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.38: Transfer of African spurred tortoise Geochelone sulcata from Appendix II toAppendix I (France)
Little information is provided to justify a transfer of the species from Appendix II to Appendix
I. Even if sufficient information is available, it seems unlikely that the species meets thecriteria for Appendix I listing. Of great concern is that the proponent did not consult range
states in spite of the fact that most of the range states are French-speaking countries and it
is easy to consult. This proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.39: Transfer of Pancake tortoise Malacochercus tornieri from Appendix II
to Appendix I (Kenya, USA)

The proposal is very poorly documented. The proponents do not provide justifiable
information on the population status and trends. Contrary to what the proponents state
under "Additional Remarks", it seems unlikely that the species meets the criteria for
Appendix I listing. According to the proposal, Kenya has consulted Tanzania but the
proposal does not provide Tanzanian views. It has been reported that remedial actions
have been taken by Tanzania. Therefore, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.40: Transfer of the Cuban population of Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata
from Appendix I to Appendix II (Cuba, Dominica)
Prop. 11.41: Transfer of the Cuban population of Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata
from Appendix I to Appendix II (Cuba)
The Cuban/Dominican proposal is well documented. The most comprehensive amendment
proposal ever seen through the CITES history. After 1992, no legal commercial trade has
occurred. Cuba reduced its harvest level by more than 90 %. Data from intensive monitoringelsewhere showed an increase in the number of nesting females. It is safely inferred that the
number of mature individuals is increasing. The clutch size is large (r-strategist). The species
has high longevity. Females lay eggs many times in their life span. Widely distributed. All
these characteristics make the species robust against extinction. The species does not meet
any of the Appendix I listing criteria, nor meet any of the proposed IUCN Red List criteria for‘Critically Endangered (CR)’. All precautionary measures are satisfied. The control system
in Cuba is adequate and so is that of an importing country (Japan). Japan ceased theimportation at the end of 1992 and lifted its reservation in 1994. Cuba also promised towithdraw its reservation if the proposal is adopted. It is unlikely that an acceptance of the
proposal will have a negative impact on other populations. On the contrary, benefit of trade
should be emphasized. In its supporting statement, Cuba/Dominica made a series ofcommitments (Section 4.4.3), all good for conservation of the species in Cuba as well as in
the rest of the Caribbean. In particular, Cuban management programme has alreadycontributed to regional co-operation, and Cuba promises that some of the income
generated would be allocated directly to regional conservation efforts. The amendment willcontribute to the enhancement of economic, social and cultural aspects in the range state.
One point missing in the supporting statement is about Japan’s control system. Japan
acceded to CITES in 1980 with a reservation on this species. Even with a reservation,
Japan prohibited souvenir items for tourists being brought into Japan. Thus, the import ofprocessed shells has not been allowed for 20 years. In addition, Japan’s crafting technique
is unique and as such, it is easy to distinguish Japan’s products from others. With thesystem currently working in Japan which requires registration of business andrecord-keeping on internal shell transaction, it is sufficient to prevent illegal trade. The
proposals should be accepted.

Prop. 11.42: Transfer of the Mexican populations of Morelet's crocodile Crocodylus
morelettii
from Appendix I to Appendix II (Mexico)

This proposal was withdrawn in response to the recommendation made by IUCN
Crocodile Specialist Group.

Prop. 11.43: Transfer of Quince monitor lizard Varanus melinus from Appendix II toAppendix I (Germany)
The supporting statement is very poorly documented. Little information is presented withregard to distribution, habitat availability, population status, population trends, geographic
trends, etc. Most of the description are based on information from confidential sources,
letters and other type of personal communication. Thus, it is impossible to prove that the
species meets the criteria for listing in Appendix I. According to the title, the proponent
claims that the species meets the criteria A i), B i), B iv), C ii) and D. Since no data ispresented to assess, this description is misleading. The proponent needs to fund the surveyof the status of the species rather than submitting an amendment proposal, which may
result in the establishment of harvest quota. The species is endemic to Indonesia.
Nevertheless, the proponent did not consult Indonesia. As such, there is no justification forlisting in Appendix I and the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.44: Inclusion of Timber rattle snake Crotalus horridus in Appendix II (USA)
There are no quantitative data on the population status and trends. Nevertheless, it isapparent that the population has declined. Main threats are of internal nature. International
trade is less important and Appendix II listing will not solve the problem. As such, this
proposal should be rejected. At the same time, it is recommended that the US be
encouraged to take remedial measures.

Prop. 11.45: Deletion of Sonoran green toad Bufo retiformis from Appendix II (USA)
There is no international trade, legal or illegal. The proponent also concludes that there are
no known or documented immediate threats to this species. As the species clearly does notmeet the Appendix II listing criteria, this proposal should be accepted and accordingly, thespecies be deleted from Appendix II.

Prop. 11.46: Inclusion of Madagascar poison frogs Mantella spp. in Appendix II(Netherlands, USA)
There is a significant demand for these species in pet trade. In addition to habitat
destruction, international trade is a major factor contributing to a decline in the species.
Listing Mantella spp. in Appendix II would help Madagascar to implement its management
programme which has recently been established. Only concern is that Madagascar's view

on this proposal is not expressed in the proposal. Under the circumstance, this proposal
should be accepted on condition that Madagascar also supports this proposal.

Prop. 11.47: Inclusion of Whale shark Rhincodon typus in Appendix II (USA)As the proponent mentions, there is little information on biological parameters. The
proponent needs to provide more information to justify its proposal. Under the circumstance,
there is no scientific ground to support this proposal. FAO has developed the International
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks and will become fully
operative shortly. It will make it possible to identify biological parameters and monitor tradevolume and pattern. It is difficult to understand to list the species in CITES Appendices atthis stage. The proponent concluded that the species meets the biological criteria forinclusion in Appendix II. However, based on the information provided in its supportingstatement, it is difficult to so conclude. As such, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.48: Inclusion of Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias in Appendix I(Australia,
USA)
As admitted in the proposal, available data on population numbers are extremely limited
and its population status is uncertain. The proponent infers, based on anecdotal information,that the number has decreased. Data on ‘catch per unit effort’ (Cliff et al. 1996) are referred
but it is difficult to conclude that the number has declined since 1965. With regard to
Richard Bay, a sample size is too small, thus making difficult to reach any conclusion. Six
factors are identified as the major impacts. However, most of them are internal factors, notinternational factors, and therefore, Appendix I listing will not have a positive effect. It is nota solution to list in CITES appendices. Rather, it is more important that Australia, USA andother range states strengthen their enforcement effort if they wish to conserve the species.
Citing Compagno et al. (1997), the proponent says that a decline in great white shark
populations will result in growth of an underground sales network or black market. Appendix
I listing would have the same effect because its legal supply will be reduced substantially asa result of Appendix I listing. FAO has developed an International Plan of Action forConservation and Management of Sharks which will become fully operative shortly. It will
make it possible to identify biological parameters and monitor trade pattern and volume. It
is difficult to understand to list the species in Appendices at this stage. The proponent
expects that by listing in Appendix I, all CITES Parties are brought to the same international
standard. However, this expectation is too optimistic because such a thing has not
happened for many other species currently listed in Appendix I. The proponent says thatthe species meets the biological criteria for listing in Appendix I. However, there is little
information to support that the species meets the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 including“Definition”. Even if data are available, it seems unlikely that the species meets the criteria.
It is mentioned that FAO International Plan of Action is voluntary and does not provide thegreat white shark with the immediate protection it currently demands. However, underCITES, internal management and control which are highly demanded for this species arealso voluntary even after it is listed in Appendix I. The proposal should be rejected.
Prop. 11.49: Inclusion of Basking shark 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 inferred that the population has declined dramatically but data are notavailable against 'catch per unit effort'. Sightings reported to the Marine Conservation
Society indicate that in 1998, the second largest number of sharks was recorded within thepast two decades in spite of the fact that the sighting scheme was not promoted in 1998.
FAO has developed an International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of
Sharks which will become fully operative shortly. It will make it possible to identify biologicalparameters and monitor trade pattern and volume. It is difficult to understand to list the
species in Appendices at this stage. It is premature to list the species in Appendix II and assuch, the proposal be rejected.

Prop. 11.50: Inclusion of Coelacanth Latimeria spp. in Appendix I (France, Germany)
Prop. 11.51: Inclusion of Coelacanth Latimeria menadoensis in Appendix I (Indonesia)
These two proposals have the same effect and should be addressed together. The range
state of the species in question is Indonesia. The population status is unknown because
Latimeria menadoensis is a newly discovered species. Based on the data on anotherspecies in the same genus, it is most likely that the species has a limited distribution andsmall population size, which justify Appendix I listing. The proposals should be accepted.

Prop. 11.52: Inclusion of Ornamental tarantula Poecilotheria spp. in Appendix II (Sri Lanka,
USA)
Little or no information is provided on the status of the distribution, population andpopulation trends. Even if data are available, it seems unlikely that the species in question
meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II. It seems from the supporting statement thatthe main cause of the population decline of some Poecilotheria species is habitat
destruction. As such, international trade in these species does not contribute to the survivalof the species in question. CITES listing will not solve the problem currently India and Sri
Lanka are facing. In the supporting statement, it is mentioned that there are no known
population studies being conducted in the field on any of the Poecilotheria spp.. The UnitedStates and Sri Lanka as the proponents are encouraged to study the status of the species
in co-operation with India. As mentioned in the supporting statement, there are concernsthat the listing of all Poecilotheria spp. on CITES will shift the commercial pet trade demand
to another tarantula species which are already listed in Appendix II. Therefore, there is no
justification for listing the tarantula species in Appendix II and the proposal should be
rejected.

Prop. 11.53: Harmonization of exemptions related to medicinal products by combining thecurrent annotation #2 for Podophyllum hexandrum and Rauvolfia sepentina withannotation #8 for Taxus wallichiana in the interpretation of Appendices I andII (Switzerland)This proposal was submitted on behalf of the Plants Committee. The proposal is oftechnical nature and be in principle accepted.

Prop. 11.54: Inclusion of roots of Asian ginseng Panax ginseng in Appendix II (Russia)
The species used to be distributed in Russia, China and Korea. The wild populations ofChina and Korea are considered to be extinct. It is obvious from the supporting statementthat the major threat is international trade followed by domestic trade and habitat
degradation. Several remedial measures have been taken and were incorporated in thelegislation by Russian Federation. Still, there exists illegal trade. Listing in Appendix II will
help monitor trade and strengthen the enforcement effort in Russia. However, listing inAppendix II may cause serious implementation/enforcement problems to other countries
where the ginseng is commercially cultivated on a significant scale. In particular, theRepublic of Korea is strongly opposed to the proposal. Under the circumstance, this
proposal should be accepted on condition that Russian Federation reduces the scope of
the proposal to its own population.

Prop. 11.55: Transfer of the Argentinean population of Monkey puzzle tree Araucaria
araucana from Appendix II to Appendix I (Argentina)
The species is distributed in Argentina and Bolivia. Whereas the population in Bolivia isalready listed in Appendix I, the Argentinean population is in Appendix II. Because of this,Argentina has faced difficulty in enforcement, in particular on seeds. Listing the Argentinean
population in Appendix I would help implement the management programme undertaken by
Argentina. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.56: Exemption of up to three specimens of rainsticks per person from CITES
controls (Chile)
These species are listed in Appendix II, requiring the issuance of export permits. The
proponent is asking for the exemption of the issuance of export permits stressing that the
products are made of dead columnar cactii and the export of up to three specimens are fornon-commercial purposes. It seems that the proponent has justification but it should bepointed out that it would be impossible to exempt the specimens of rainsticks from CITES
requirements. Unless a Resolution is adopted to this effect, this proposal should berejected.

Prop. 11.57: Deletion of White wicky Kalmia cuneata from Appendix II (USA)
According to the proposal, no international trade, legal or illegal, has been reported.
Deletion of the species from Appendix II will not create any detrimental effect. The species
occurs in the US only. As such, the proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.58: Inclusion of Happytree Camptotheca acuminata in Appendix II (China)
The species is endemic to China. It is considered that the wild population is less than 4,000.
However, China has developed many plantation programmes. The proposal fails to provethat a major threat to the wild population is international trade. China started recently (1January 1998) monitoring international trade in seeds and live specimen and found that noillegal trade has occurred since that date. As such, it is premature to list the species inAppendix II. The proposal should be rejected. However, China is encouraged to continue
its monitoring effort.

Prop. 11.59: Inclusion of Desertliving cistanche Cistanche deserticola in Appendix II (China)
The species is endemic to China and used for medicine. The trade volume is significant. It
is unlikely that artificial propagation makes a success because it is a parasitic species.
Even if it succeeds, it will not produce a large volume of specimens. Because of the highdemand in international market, smuggling may be occurring. Appendix II listing will help
strengthen the conservation effort by China. The proposal should be accepted.

Prop. 11.60: Inclusion of Devil's claw Hrpagophytum procumbens and H. zeyheri in
Appendix II (Germany)
Little information is available on the population status and trends. However, it seems thatthe demand for the species has increased in international medicinal market, but the
population still seems abundant. The proponent does not specify if it has consulted therange states, i.e., southern African countries. The proposal should be rejected unless therange states support the proposal.

Prop. 11.61: Inclusion of Spring adonis Adonis vernalis in Appendix II (Germany)
The species is collected from the wild for ornamental or medicinal purposes. It seems thatthe population has decreased dramatically from its historical level. Main threats arecollection for internal trade and habitat destruction. Currently, Romania is a main exporting

country. Since other countries are not so important as exporters, Appendix II listing may nothave a positive effect, contrary to what the proponent expects. The proponent has
consulted with range states and received comments from several countries but fails topresent their comments. Under the circumstance, the proposal should be rejected.

Prop. 11.62: Transfer of Lignum-vitae Guaiacum sanctum from Appendix II to Appendix I(USA)
Little information is provided in the proposal to justify for listing the species in Appendix I.
Cuba and Dominican Republic are opposed to the proposal because they believe that the
species is not threatened but stable or abundant. It seems unlikely that the species meetsthe criteria for Appendix I and as such, the proposal should be rejected.