GGT’S RECOMMENDATIONSON THE AMENDMENT PROPOSALSFOR CONSIDERATION AT THE SEVENTEENTH MEETING
OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO CITES(Johannesburg, 2016)

GLOBAL GUARDIAN TRUSTNo
Species		wood bison
1 Bison bison athabascae
western tur
2 Capra caucasica
vicuna3 Vicugna vicugnalion
4 Panthera leo
puma
5 Puma concolor
mountain zebra
6 Equus zebra zebra
white rhino
7 Ceratotherium simum simum
Indian pangolin
8 Manis crassicaudata
Indian pangolin
9 Manis crassicaudata
Philippine pangolin
10 Manis culionensis
pangolins
11 M. javanica, M. pentadactyla
African pangolins
12 Manis spp.
barbary macaque
13 Macaca sylvanus
African elephant
14 Loxodonta africana
African elephant
15 Loxodonta africana
African elephant
16 Loxodonta africana
peregrine falcon
17 Falco peregrinus
18 Lichenostomus melanops cassidix
			helmeted honeyeater
grey parrot
19 Psittacus erithacus

Recommendation
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

Amendment
II → 00 → II
Annotation
II → I
I → II
I → II
Annotation
II → I
II → I
II → I
II → I
II → I
II → I
Annotation
Annotation
II → I
I → II
I → II
II → ISUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS

20 Ninox novaeseelandiae undulate			
Norfork Island boobook
American crocodile
21 Crocodylus acutus
Morelet's crocodile
22 Crocodylus moreletti
Nile crocodile
23 Crocodylus niloticus
saltwatr crocodile
24 Crocodylus porosus
alligator lizards
25 Abronia spp.
alligator lizards
26 Abronia spp.
27 Rhampholeon spp. Rieppeleon spp.
			
pygmy chameleons
28 Rhampholeon spp. Rieppeleon spp.
			
pygmy chameleons
29 Cnemaspis psychedelica
			psychedelic rock gecko
Turquoise dwarf gecko
30 Lygodactylus williamsi
Masobe gecko
31 Paroedula masobe
earless monitor lizards
32 Lanthanotidae spp.
33 Shinisaurus crocodilurus			
Chinese crocodile lizard
Ashe's bush viper
34 Atheris desaixi
Kenya horned viper
35 Bitis worthingtoni
softshell turtles
36 Cyclanorbis spp. et al.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes

I → II
I → II
Annotation
Annotation
I → II
0 → I,II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0→I
0→I
0 → II
0→I
II → I
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II

37 Dyscophus antongilii
tomato frog
false tomato frog
38 Dyscophus spp.
burrowing frogs
39 Scaphiophryne spp.
Titicaca water frog
40 Telmatobius coleus
41 Paramesotriton hongkongensis
			Hong Kong warty newt
silky shark
42 Carcharhinus falciformis
thresher sharks
43 Alopias spp.
devil rays
44 Mobula spp.
ocellate river stingray
45 Potamotryugon motoro
Banggai cardinalfish
46 Pterapogon kauderniclarion angelfish
47 Holacanthus clarionensis
nautilus
48 Nautilidae spp.
Cuban landsnails
49 Polymita spp.
ponytail palm
50 Beaucarnea spp.
Maury's tillandsia
51 Tillandsia mauryana
fishhook cacti
52 Sclerocactus spp.
Siamese rosewood
53 Dalbergia cochinchinensis
rosewoods
54 Dalbergia spp.
rosewoods
55 Dalbergia spp.
bubingas
56 Guibourtia spp.
African rosewood
57 Pterocarpus erinaceus
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

I → II
0 → II
0 → II
0→I
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0→I
0 → II
II → 0II → I
Annotation
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II

58
59
60
61
62

Adansonia grandidieri
Grandidier's baobab
Abies numidica
Algerian fir
Aquilaria spp., Gyrinops spp.
agarwood
Siphonochilus aethiopicus
Natal ginger
Bulnesia sarmientoi
holy wood
0 → II
0→I
Annotation
0 → II
Annotation

No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS
Prop. Deletion of wood bison Bison bison athabascae from Appendix II
1 (Canada)

The subspecies of the wood bison Bison bison athabascae is distributed in
Canada and Alaska. The subspecies was transferred from Appendix I toAppendix II two decades ago. Although its distribution is fragmented, the total
area is very large. The population of matured individuals is estimated to be
5,213-7,191. It is clear that the subspecies does not meet the Appendix II listing
criteria. Since a century ago, the population has substantially recovered andCanada’s conservation effort should be commended. Trade volume has beensmall and therefore, international trade is not an issue. The proposal should be
adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of western tur Capra caucasica in Appendix II, with a zerofor wild-taken Capra caucasica caucasica exported for2 quotacommercial purposes or as hunting trophies (EU and Georgia)
The western tur Capra caucasica consists of three subspecies. The proposal
aims to prohibit export of one subspecies C. c. caucasica for commercial
purposes or as hunting trophies. As far as this subspecies is concerned, theeffect of an Appendix II listing is stricter than Appendix I provisions. Georgia
prohibits hunting of the species but illegal hunting seems to occur. However, thisproblem should be solved by Georgia itself with the assistance of the
co-proponent, European Union. Furthermore, the proponents mention that thescale of hunting and illegal trade is unknown. The Russian Federation declined
to co-sponsor the proposal. The proposal is premature and unless the RussianFederation supports the proposal, it should be rejected.
Prop. Amendment to the CITES Appendices referring to annotations 1, 2, 3,
3 4 and 5 of the populations of Vicugna vicugna in Appendix II (Peru)
Some populations of the vicuna in Argentina and Chile are listed in Appendix II
and the whole populations of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia are also listed inAppendix II. All other populations are included in Appendix I. The species was
originally listed in Appendix I. Since the management of vicunas has beensuccessful in South America, these populations were transferred from Appendix I
to Appendix II with slightly different annotations. With the adoption of this
proposal, the annotations will become identical among these five countries. The
proposal should be adopted.

1

Prop. Transfer of all African populations of lion Panthera leo from Appendix II
Appendix I (Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania,
4 toNiger, Nigeria and Togo)
While southern African countries have healthy lion populations, the population
has decreased in the rest of the range States. The main threat is retaliatory or
pre-emptive killing to protect human life and livestock. Habitat loss and alteration
to agricultural land and livestock ranch have also contributed to a decline in lion
populations. All of these elements are not affected by listing the lion in Appendix I
and should be dealt with internally. Although international trade in lion specimens
may have increased recently, most of them are from healthy populations. The
proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Transfer of cougars Puma concolor coryi and Puma concolor couguar
5 from Appendix I to Appendix II (Canada)
The cougar is distributed from North America through Central America to SouthAmerica. The species is divided into several subspecies. Two subspecies inNorth America are listed in Appendix I and all other subspecies in North America
in Appendix II. The proposal aims to simplify CITES listings by transferring these
two subspecies from Appendix I to Appendix II. P. c. cougar is considered tohave been extinct. P. c. coryi is fully protected and its population has recovered
reaching carrying capacity. Since a transfer of the two subspecies has noadverse effect on their survival, the proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Transfer of Cape mountain zebra Equus zebra zebra from Appendix I
6 to Appendix II (South Africa)

The Cape mountain zebra is endemic to South Africa. The subspecies was first
listed in Appendix I in 1973. Numbers on private ranches have been increasing.
If this proposal is adopted by the Conference of the Parties, it would give more
flexibility to private ranches which enable to create incentives for conservation. It
is important to note that 31 % of the national population occurs on privateranches. In the 1950s, the national population of the subspecies was 80
approximately. Now, it is estimated a minimum of 4,791. South Africa’s effort
should be commended and therefore, the proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Amendment of the annotation on the Appendix II listing of Swaziland
7 population of the white rhino Ceratotherium simum simum (Swaziland)

The white rhino populations of South Africa and Swaziland are listed in Appendix
II with an annotation. The proposal from Swaziland aims at allowing aninternational trade in rhino horns. By using proceeds from selling rhino horns,
Swaziland wishes to enhance its effort to conserve its rhino population. Listingrhinos in Appendix I has proven to be a failure and innovative approaches need
to be taken. This proposal is one of such approaches and as such, it should be2

adopted. The adoption of the proposal is in the best interest of the conservationof the species. Those who oppose this proposal are encouraged to provide
Swaziland with financial assistances.
Prop. Transfer of Indian pangolin Manis crassicaudata from Appendix II to
8 Appendix I (Bangladesh)

The Indian pangolin is distributed in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka and China. The species is protected from hunting and trade undernational legislation in all range States. The species was listed in Appendix II in
1973. India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the US submitted a proposal to transfer the
species from Appendix II to Appendix I at CoP11 (Gigiri, 2000) but the original
proposal was not adopted. What was adopted is an Appendix II listing with anannotation of a zero export quota for wild specimens for commercial purposes.
Since 2000, the species has been subject to stricter regulations. In practice,there is no difference between an Appendix I listing and the present status.
Transfer of the species to Appendix I will not change the current situation. We
see no rationale behind the proposal and therefore, recommend that the
proposal be rejected. However, both range States and potential importing
countries should strengthen their enforcement effort.
Prop. Transfer of Indian pangolin Manis crassicaudata from Appendix II to
9 Appendix I (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, USA)This proposal is almost identical to the previous one. For the same reason, theproposal should be rejected. We reiterate that both range States and potential
importing countries should strengthen their enforcement effort. In addition, weare concerned that programmes to manage wild populations do not exist in any
range States. As a matter of urgency, the range States need to develop suchmanagement programmes, perhaps with the assistance of one of the
proponents, i.e., the US.
Prop. Transfer of Philippine pangolin Manis culionensis from Appendix II to
10 Appendix I (Philippines, USA)

Prior to 1998, the Philippine pangolin was considered to be a subspecies ofManis javanica, which was first listed in Appendix II in 1973. The Philippine
pangolin was then recognized as a distinct species. The species is endemic to
the Palawan region of the Philippines. Little is known of the population size
because of difficulties in population estimates. The population may havedeclined during the recent decades. It seems however that the species does notmeet the Appendix I criteria. In 2000, a zero export quota was set. In practice,there is no difference between an Appendix I listing and the present status.
Transfer of the species to Appendix I will not change the current situation. We
see no rationale behind the proposal and therefore, recommend that the
proposal be rejected.
3

Prop. Transfer of Malayan pangolin Manis javanica and Chinese pangolin M.
11 pentadactyla from Appendix II to Appendix I (USA, Vietnam)
The Malayan pangolin Manis javanica and Chinese pangolin Manis pentadactyla
widely occur mainly in Southeast Asia. Although both species are declining, thepopulation size does not seem small. As mentioned above, a zero export quota
was set for both species in 2000. In practice, there is no difference between an
Appendix I listing and the present status. Transfer of the species to Appendix I
will not change the current situation. We see no rationale behind the proposal
and therefore, recommend that the proposal be rejected.
Transfer of long-tailed pangolin Manis tetradactyla, white-bellied
Prop. pangolin M. tricuspis, giant pangolin M. gigantea and South African
pangolin M. temminckii from Appendix II to Appendix I (Angola,
12 Botswana,Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia,
Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Togo, USA)The Temminck’s pangolin is distributed mainly in Eastern Africa and Southern
Africa. Three other species occur sympatrically mainly in Central Africa.
Currently, all the four species are listed in Appendix II without annotations.
African and Asian pangolins have been subject to in-depth discussions by the
Animals Committee and Standing Committee. At its 66th meeting, the Standing
Committee agreed to submit the draft resolution on “Conservation of and trade inpangolins” for consideration at CoP17. The submission of the present proposal(Prop.12) is contrary to this development, thus undermining the efforts made so
far. All the proposals relating to African and Asian pangolins should be rejected.
Prop. Transfer of barbary macaque Macaca sylvanus from Appendix II to
13 Appendix I (EU, Morocco)
The species is distributed in Morocco and Algeria. The animals were also
introduced to Gibraltar. The main threat is habitat loss and degradation.
According to the supporting statement, there is illegal international trade in live
specimens. In Morocco and Algeria, the species is protected. Even if the species
is transferred to Appendix I, habitat loss and illegal trade would continue. An
Appendix I listing would not contribute to the conservation of the species without
improving the CITES implementation of range States. In addition, the species
does not meet the Appendix I criteria. Therefore, there is no justification forlisting in Appendix I and as such, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Deletion of the annotation to the listing of the Namibian African
14 elephant Loxodonta africana population in Appendix II (Namibia)

We welcome this proposal from a conservation point of view. The proposal
should be adopted. Rejection to this proposal will have a negative impact on theelephant population and local communities that live with elephants on a daily
4basis. We are of the opinion that ‘one-off trade’ was a failure. The best interest of
the conservation of the African elephant will be achieved through allowinginternational trade in ivory with an annual quota which may be established by arange State itself. By permitting ivory trade annually, exporting countries will beable to establish more pragmatic, long-term elephant conservation programmes.
By continuing to reject proposals on the African elephant submitted by southern
African countries, the Conference of the Parties is driving the elephant to follow
the same destiny as being taken by rhinos. Therefore, the Conference of theParties needs to make the right decision.
Prop. Deletion of the annotation to the listing of the Zimbabwe population ofelephant Loxodonta africana in Appendix II (Namibia,
15 African
Zimbabwe)
We welcome this proposal from a conservation point of view for the same reason
as the previous proposal Prop. 14 submitted by Namibia. The proposal should
be adopted.
Transfer of African elephant Loxodonta africana populations ofProp. Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe from Appendix II to
I (Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad,
16 Appendix
Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sri Lanka,
Uganda)The plight now faced by African elephants started in 1989 when the Conferenceof the Parties adopted a transfer of the species as a whole from Appendix II toAppendix I despite the recognition that southern African populations did not meet
the Appendix I criteria. Those who supported an Appendix I listing need to takethe responsibility because that decision brought about the present situation. The
populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe were transferred back toAppendix II in 1997 and that of South Africa in 2000. Since then, international
ivory trade took place twice, but both were ‘one-off trade’. This decision
exacerbated the situation. According to the supporting statement, the proposal
aims at extending the proponents’ hand to their brothers and sisters in theSouthern African range States, referring to a Swahili proverb, “Unity is strength,
division is weakness.” Consultations were made with southern African range
States. Ironically, Namibia and Zimbabwe opposed the proposal and South
Africa was not in favour of the proposal. Namibia stressed that they were notconvinced the transfer would prevent the illegal killing of the species and that
populations in Appendix I were facing far greater levels of illegal killing than
Appendix II populations. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that division was
created by those who promoted a blanket ban on ivory trade in 1989, not by
southern African countries. The proponents criticized Japan on its domestic ivory
control based on unsubstantiated allegations made by Environmental
Investigation Agency. The proponent countries and Japan have enjoyed a goodworking relationship and therefore, the proponents should have asked Japan for5the authenticity of allegations. In conclusion, the proposal should be rejected.
However, the adoption of this proposal may be in the best interest of theconservation of the African elephant if both range States and importing countries
enter a reservation with regard to the African elephant. It should also be pointed
out that most of the proponents are classified as Category 2 or 3 under the
CITES national legislation project, while Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe
are classified as Category 1 and Botswana as Category 2. What the proponents
need to do is not to submit this proposal but to improve their national legislations.
Prop. Transfer of peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus from Appendix I to
17 Appendix II (Canada)

The peregrine falcon is a cosmopolitan species and its total population isextremely large. Most of the birds subject to international trade are from captive
breeding facilities. Transfer of the species from Appendix I to Appendix II will nothave a negative impact on wild populations. In addition, an Appendix II listing
requires a non-detriment finding under the Article IV of the Convention. The
proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Transfer of helmeted honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix
18 from Appendix I to Appendix II (Australia)

The helmeted honeyeater is endemic to Australia and its subspecies
Lichenostomus melanops cassidix occurs only in south-central Victoria withestimated 100- mature individuals. The subspecies is fully protected under
Australian laws. International trade is almost non-existent. Even if thesubspecies is downlisted to Appendix II, the conservation status will remainunchanged. Victorian State is supportive of the proposal and as such, it should
be adopted.
Prop. Transfer of grey parrot Psittacus erithacus from Appendix II to
I (Angola, Chad, EU, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Senegal,
19 Appendix
Togo, USA)The grey parrot is distributed in West and Central Africa. Since its inclusion in
Appendix II in 1981, a large number of the grey parrots have been tradedinternationally. Little is known of the population size because of the difficulty of
estimating the population size. In most of the range States, national export
quotas are set at zero. An anual quota was established by Cameroon (3,000)
and DRC (5,000). The proponents consulted with range States. Most of therange States were in favour of the proposal but Equatorial Guinea and DRC
opposed the proposal. Cameroon has not taken its specific position. It seems
unlikely that the species meets the Appendix I listing criteria. The proposal
should be rejected.

6Prop. Transfer of Norfolk Island boobook owl Ninox novaeseelandiae
20 undulata from Appendix I to Appendix II (Australia)
The Norfolk Island boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae occurs in New Zealand andparts of Australia. Its subspecies N. n. undulata was endemic to Norfolk Island.
Genetically pure form of N. n. undulata is believed to be extinct and the
population on Norfolk Island is considered a hybrid between N. n. undulata andN. n. novaeseelandiae. This proposal is of the same nature as Prop. 18. No
trade in the subspecies has been recorded since 1976 when all owl species
were listed in Appendix II. International trade was not a threat to the subspecies.
The proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Transfer of the population of Crocodylus acutus of the Distrito
21 Regional de Manejo from Appendix I to Appendix II (Colombia)
The American crocodile widely occurs from Florida through Caribbean islands toSouth America. The species was first listed in Appendix II in 1976. The
population of the US was transferred to Appendix I in 1979 and the rest
remained in Appendix II. In 1981, the species as a whole was listed in Appendix I
and international trade in the American crocodile was prohibited. In 2004, theCuban population was transferred back to Appendix II. Colombia proposes totransfer the population of the Distrito Regional de Manejo. The American
crocodile has been well studied in Cispata Bay. The population there has
recently increased exponentially. The proponent intends to develop a ranching
programme if the proposal is adopted. Among crocodile conservation
communities, ranching is encouraged as the most preferable conservation tool.
In this regard, Colombia and local communities surrounding Cispata Bay should
be commended. An Appendix II listing will further contribute to the conservationof the American crocodile and as such, the proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Deletion of the zero quota for wild specimens from Mexican population
22 of Morelet’s crocodile Crocodylus moreletti in Appendix II (Mexico)
The Morelet’s crocodile is distributed in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala. Mexico
submitted a proposal to transfer some population of the species to Appendix II in
2000 but that proposal was withdrawn. In 2010, Mexico resubmitted a proposal
which was approved with a zero quota for wild specimens traded for commercial
purposes. At that time, we recommended that Mexico again submit a downlisting
proposal subject to ranching. Mexico’s proposal is to delete the “zero quota forwild specimens traded for commercial purposes” aimed at developing ranching
programme. We welcome the decision made by Mexico. As mentioned under
Prop. 21, ranching is the most preferable crocodile conservation tool. Therefore,
we recommend that the proposal be adopted.

7

Prop. Maintenance of the Malagasy population of Nile crocodile Crocodylus
23 niloticus in Appendix II (Madagascar)
The Nile crocodile is widely distributed in Africa. The species as a whole wasoriginally included in Appendix I. Several national populations are afterwards
transferred to Appendix II. In 1985, the Malagasy population was transferredfrom Appendix I to Appendix II with some conditions attached. The present
proposal aims to maintain the Malagasy population in Appendix II. Madagascar
has been recognized as problematic country by the Conference of the Parties
and the Standing Committee. Although some deficiencies are found in the
supporting statement, the proposal should be adopted. The population does
meet unqualified Appendix II listing criteria. The Conference of the Parties shouldseek clarification from Madagascar for final approval of the proposal. Technicaland financial assistance from other countries may be required.
Prop. Transfer of saltwater crocodile Crocodylus porosus in Malaysia from24 Appendix I to Appendix II (Malaysia)
The saltwater crocodile was transferred from Appendix II to Appendix I in 1979
except the population of Papua New Guinea. At that time, the poorly
documented proposal was submitted by India. We are of the opinion that thesaltwater crocodile should not have been listed in Appendix I. The populations ofAustralia and Indonesia were then transferred to Appendix II. The species as awhole does not meet the Appendix I listing criteria and probably should be listed
in Appendix II. The wild population in Sarawak has increased significantly over
the three decades thanks to conservation measures. As a result, humancrocodile conflict has increased. The wild population decreased in the past inSarawak, but the population does not any more meet the Appendix I listing
criteria. Malaysia’s effort to conserve the saltwater crocodile should be rewarded
and as such, the proposal should be adopted.
Inclusion of alligator lizards Abronia anzuetoi, A. campbelli, A.
Prop. fimbriata, A. frosti and A. meledona in Appendix I and A. aurita, A.
25 gaiophantasma, A. montecristoi, A. salabadorensis and A.
vasconcelosii in Appendix II (Guatemala)The proponent proposes to list five Abronia species in Appendix I and anotherfive Abronia species in Appendix II. These species are distributed in El Salvador,
Guatemala and Honduras. According to the supporting statement, there is noquantitative data on the population size and trends for most of these species. It
is impossible to evaluate whether these species meet the Appendices listing
criteria, in particular in the case of Appendix I listings. However, it is also clearthat illegal trade in these species exists. It may be more appropriate to list these
species in Appendix II. If this is the case, the next proposal (Prop. 26) covers
these ten species. We recommend that this proposal be rejected and Prop. 26
be adopted instead.
8

Prop. Inclusion of the genus Abronia (29 species) in Appendix II (EU,
26 Mexico)
The alligator lizards are distributed in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El
Salvador. The genus Abronia comprises 29 species. The proponents propose tolist all species in Appendix II. Although the population size is not well understood,
the density of some species is considered low. In addition, the populations ofsome species are considered to be in decline. Some of the species have been
subject to international trade, both legally and illegally. It is clear that some of thespecies meet the Appendix II listing criteria. It is appropriate to list the genus
Abronia as a higher taxon. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of the genera Rhampholeon spp. and Rieppeleon spp. in
II (Central African Republic, Chad, Gabon, Kenya, Nigeria,
27 Appendix
USA)
African pygmy chameleons in the genera Rhampholeon and Rieppeleonare are
not listed in CITES Appendices. Pygmy chameleons are commonly traded in theinternational pet trade. Tanzania is the main exporting country, followed by
Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon and Guinea. The proponents sent consultation
letters to range States. According to the supporting statement, none of thecountries mentioned above have not shown their positions. Therefore, theproposal should be adopted on the condition that these countries support the
proposal.
Prop. Inclusion of the genera Rhampholeon spp. and Rieppeleon spp. in
28 Appendix II (Kenya)
This proposal is almost identical to the previous one. For the same reason, theproposal should be adopted on the condition that Tanzania and other main
exporting countries support the proposal.
Prop. Inclusion of psychedelic rock gecko Cnemaspis psychedelica in
29 Appendix I (EU, Viet Nam)
The psychedelic rock gecko is endemic to a small island in Viet Nam. The
population size is small and the distribution area is restricted. It seems thatcollection for the pet trade is the main threat to the species. The species meets
the Appendix I listing criteria and as such, the proposal should be adopted.
However, habitat loss/alteration is also recognized as another threat andtherefore, Viet Nam should establish an overall management programme withthe assistance from EU.

9Prop. Inclusion of Turquoise dwarf gecko Lygodactylus williamsi in Appendix
30 I (EU, Tanzania)
The Turquoise dwarf gecko is endemic to Tanzania. Due to its unique coloration,
the species is popular as pets. Demand for pet trade has recently increased. As
a result, the total population is rapidly decreasing. Over-collection for the pet
trade is the main threat to the species. It is clear that the species meets the
Appendix I listing criteria. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of Masobe gecko Paroedura masobe in Appendix II (EU,
31 Madagascar)

The Masobe gecko is endemic to Madagascar. No information is available on the
population size and trends of the species. The species is fully protected
throughout Madagascar and can not be hunted, captured or possessed. The
species’ main distribution areas are Betampona Reserve and Zahamena
National Park, both of which are not open to the public. However, many live
specimens have been exported from Madagascar for unknown reasons. In 2014
only, 505 individuals were exported. Under para 11 ‘Additional remarks’, theproponents stated that “listing a species in Appendix I encourages illicit
trafficking of all genera, as well as hunting.” As mentioned above, the species isalready protected throughout Madagascar. We see no rationale behind the
proposal. The proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Inclusion of earless monitor lizard Lanthanotidae spp. in Appendix I
32 (Malaysia)

The earless monitor lizard Lanthanotus borneensis is the only species belonging
to the family Lanthanotidae. The species occurs in Brunei Darussalam, Sarawak
and Kalimantan on Borneo Island. In these three countries, the species are fully
protected. According to the supporting statement, the species meets one of the
Appendix I listing criteria concerning a restricted area of distribution. On theother hand, the proponent indicated that the species meets the Appendix II listing
criteria. No information is available on the population size and trends and assuch, it is difficult to evaluate if the species is qualified for an Appendix I listing.
Under the circumstances, the proposal should be rejected. It is more
appropriate to list the species in Appendix II.
Prop. Transfer of Chinese crocodile lizard Shinisaurus crcodilurus from33 Appendix II to Appendix I (China, EU, Viet Nam)
The Chinese crocodile lizard is distributed in southern China and northern Viet
Nam with a restricted area of distribution. There seems to be sufficient
information on the population size and trends. The species is protected in China
and regulated in Viet Nam. It seems the species meets the Appendix II listing
criteria. China and Viet Nam, the two range States are the co-proponents of the10

proposal. The proposal should be adopted. Viet Nam needs to expedite aprocess to designate the species as protected.
Prop.

34

Inclusion of Ashe’s bush viper Atheris desaixi in Appendix II (Kenya)

The Mt. Kenya bush viper is endemic to Kenya. Little is known of the population
size and trends. The supporting statement is poorly documented. It is difficult toevaluate whether the species meets the Appendix II criteria. It seems that themain threat is habitat alteration caused by the expansion of human population.
The proposal is premature and as such, should be rejected.
Prop. Inclusion of Kenya horned viper Bitis worthingtoni in Appendix II
35 (Kenya)
The Kenya horned viper is endemic to Kenya. Little is known of the population
size and trends. As is the case with the previous proposal, the supportingstatement is poorly documented. It is difficult to evaluate whether the species
meets the Appendix II criteria. It seems that the main threat is habitat alteration
caused by the expansion of human population. The proposal is premature andas such, should be rejected.
Inclusion of soft-shell turtles Cyclanorbis elegans, C. senegalensis, C.
Prop. aubryi, C. frenatum, Trionyx triunguis and Rafetus euphraticus in
36 Appendix II (Burkina Faso, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania,
Nigeria, Togo, USA)The proposal is to list six species of softshell turtles in Appendix II. They are
distributed widely in Africa and Middle East. The rationale of this proposal is thatas Asian softshell turtles received greater CITES protection at CoP16,
exploitation and trade shifted from Asian softshell turtle species to African
species. It is ironical that CITES listings have a negative impact on otherspecies. However, the proponents’ concern is understandable. The proposal
should be adopted. In many of the range States, softshell turtles are protectedor regulated. Without enhancing their enforcement activities, Appendix II listings
would not contribute to the conservation of softshell turtles. It is advisable thatthe co-proponents, in particular the US assist the range States in developing
management programmes.
Prop. Transfer of tomato frog Dyscophus antongilii from Appendix I to
37 Appendix II (Madagascar)
The tomato frog is endemic to Madagascar. The species was first listed inAppendix I in 1987 without sufficient data. Little is known of the population size
but it is believed to be locally abundant. The species does not meet the Appendix
I listing criteria. By transferring the species from Appendix I to Appendix II,
11

Madagascar would be given more flexibility in order to manage this species. The
proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of false tomato frogs Dyscophus guineti and D. insularis in
38 Appendix II (Madagascar)

The genus Dyscophus consists of three frog species, which are endemic to
Madagascar. Madagascar proposes to transfer D. antongilii from Appendix I toAppendix II and to include other two species in Appendix II. If Prop. 37 and 38
are adopted, all three species in the genus Dyscophus will be listed in Appendix
II. D. guineti is similar to D. antongilii in morphology and coloration. It isappropriate to list the genus Dyscophus as a higher taxon. The proposal should
be adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of burrowing frogs Scaphiophryne marmorat, S. boribory and
39 S. spinosa in Appendix II (Madagascar)
The genus Scaphiophryne comprises eleven frog species, which are endemic to
Madagascar. No information is available on the population size and trends. The
proponent suggests that the main threat is habitat loss. Therefore, lisiting inAppendix II will not change the current situation. According to the supportingstatement, there are no species-based management measures in place. What
the proponent needs is not to list the three species in Appendix II but to develop
species specific management programmes. The proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Inclusion of Titicaca water frog Telmagobius culeus in Appendix I
40 (Bolivia, Peru)
The Titicaca water frog is distributed in Peru and Bolivia, occurring on the Lake
Titicaca basin. Although the population may have decreased, the population isstill large and healthy. The species is protected in both Peru and Bolivia but still,a large number of the frog are subject to exploitation. In practice, there is nodifference between an Appendix I listing and the current situation. Even if listed
in Appendix I, illegal trade for local consumption would continue. Under thecircumstances, we recommend that the proposal be rejected. However, theproponents may wish to amend the proposal to the effect that the species islisted in Appendix II.
Prop. Inclusion of Hong Kong newt Paramesotriton hongkongensis in
41 Appendix II (China)
The Hong Kong newt is endemic to China, occurring only in Hong Kong Island
and Guangdong Province. The species is protected in both mainland China andHong Kong. In order to collect newts, it is necessary to obtain approval fromlocal departments. A large number of newts were exported legally to the US and
EU. Management measures do not exist in China except in protected areas.
12Early in 2016, the US ceased the importation of the species. It may beappropriate to see the effect of US’s decision. We understand that demand for
different species of newts not only in China but other countries have been
increasing recently. Restriction on the collection of Hong Kong newt may have anegative impact on other species. Under the circumstances, it is recommended
that the proposal be rejected.
Inclusion of silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis in Appendix II(Bahamas,
Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Comoros,
Prop.
Dominican Republic, Egypt, EU, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea42 Bissau, Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Senegal, Sri
Lanka, Ukraine)
The silky shark is globally distributed in tropical and sub-tropical waters. Almost
all the distribution area is covered by regional fisheries management
organizations such as WCPFC, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC and CCSBT. In addition, it
seems that the species does not meet the Appendix II listing criteria. Most of the
RFMOs have implemented finning bans. FAO and RFMOs should be the primeorganization responsible for shark fisheries. Like other shark species, listing thesilky shark will create unnecessary implementation burden on Management
Authorities and Customs, thus depriving such CITES-related authorities ofresources, which could otherwise be utilized for other species of moreconservation priority. More importantly, several shark species have already been
listed in Appendix II and more species are expected to be proposed for CITES
listings. Indeed, by adopting Resolution Conf. 9.24, the Conference of theParties resolved that “to monitor the effectiveness of protection offered by theConvention, the status of species included in Appendices I and II should be
regularly reviewed by the range States and proponents. This is urgently needed
for shark species.” Before listing shark species, it is essential to examine theeffectiveness of such listings in relation to the conservation of sharks andinfluence on livelihood of coastal communities. In other words, it is premature tolist any shark species in CITES Appendices. Under the circumstances, theproposal should be rejected.
Inclusion of the genus Alopias spp. thresher sharks in Appendix II
Prop. (Bahamas, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Comoros,
Republic, Egypt, EU, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau,
43 Dominican
Kenya, Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Senegal,
Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Ukraine)
The proponents proposes the inclusion of Alopias superciliosus in accordancewith the Appendix II listing criteria Criterion A2a and other two species, A.
vulpinus and A. pelagicus in accordance with Criterion A2b. They are distributed
in tropical to temperate waters. Almost all of the distribution area is covered by
RFMOs. In addition, it seems that the species does not meet the Appendix II
listing criteria. Most of the RFMOs have implemented finning bans. FAO and
13

RFMOs should be the prime organization responsible for shark fisheries. Likeother shark species, listing the thresher shark will create unnecessary
implementation burden on Management Authorities and Customs, thus deprivingsuch CITE-related authorities of resources, which could otherwise be utilized forother species of more conservation priority. More importantly, several sharkspecies have been listed in Appendix II and more species are expected to be
proposed for CITES listings. Indeed, by adopting Resolution Conf. 9.24, theConference of the Parties resolved that “to monitor the effectiveness ofprotection offered by the Convention, the status of species included inAppendices I and II should be regularly reviewed by the range States andproponents.” This is urgently needed for shark species. Before listing sharkspecies, it is essential to examine the effectiveness of such listings in relation to
the conservation of sharks and influence on the livelihood of coastal
communities. In other words, it is premature to list any shark species in CITES
Appendices. Under the circumstances, the proposal should be rejected.
Inclusion of the genus Mobula spp. devil rays in Appendix II(Bahamas,
Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Costa
Prop.
Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, EU, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
44 Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles,
Sri Lanka, USA)The genus Mobula comprises nine species, i.e., M. mobular, M. japanica, M.
thurstoni, M. tarapacana, M. eregoodootenkee, M. kuhlii, M. hypostoma, M.
rochebrunei and M. munkiana . The proposal is to list the genus Mobula as ahigher taxon. M. tarapacana and M. japanica are for Criterion A2a and the rest

for look-alike reasons. The former two species are distributed from tropical totemperate waters, showing fragmented distribution. No reliable information isavailable on the global population size. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate if thespecies meet the Appendix II listing criteria. We are of the opinion thatcommercially exploited aquatic species should be managed by FAO, RFMOs
and individual State. For the same reason as Prop. 42 and 43, the proposal
should be rejected.
Prop. Inclusion of ocellate river stingray Potamotrygon motoro in Appendix II
45 (Bolivia)
The ocellate river stingray is widely found in freshwaters in Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay
and Venezuela. The proponent fails to provide any scientific data on the
population size and trends. No concrete data is given but it seems unlikely thatthe main threat to the species is international trade in ornament fishes. The
species does not meet the Appendix II criteria. Despite its wide distribution, theproponent did not consult other range States. The species was subject todiscussions at CoP16. Previously, listing in Appendix III was proposed at CITES
fora. Nevertheless, no action has been taken by range States. Under the14

circumstances, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Inclusion of Banggai cardinalfish Pterapogon kaudemi in Appendix II
46 (EU)This marine fish species is endemic to Indonesia. The proposal to list in
Appendix II was submitted for consideration at CoP14 in 2007 by the US. The
proposal was withdrawn after Indonesia and several others expressed theiropposition. Indonesia was consulted and indicated that the species did notdeserve a CITES listing. Since Indonesia as only range State opposes the
proposal, its sovereign rights must be respected. Rather than listing in Appendix
II, the proponent, i.e., EU should further extend its assistance to Indonesia.
Since Indonesia does not support, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Inclusion of clarion angelfish Holacanthus clarionensis in Appendix II
47 (Mexico)
The clarion angelfish is distributed mainly in Baja California Sur, Mexico. This
angelfish is captured for the aquarium trade. Fishery targeting this species iscontrolled by Mexico. If Mexico is to conserve this species, it should strengthen
its management effort. The US should assist its neighboring country because the
US has been a main importing country. In addition, it seems that the species
does not meet the Appendix II listing criteria. The proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Inclusion of the family Nautilidae nautiluses in Appendix II (Fiji, India,
48 Palau, USA)The family Nautilidae consists of two species in the genus Allonautilus and four
species in the genus Nautilus . These marine invertebrates are found from India
through Southeast Asia and Australia to Fiji, but showing patchy distribution.
Little is known of the population size and trends. According to the supportingstatement, where fisheries for chambered nautiluses are absent, the populations
are stable. Where fisheries exist, the populations may have declined. The
situation varies from country to country. Since 1990, Indonesia has prohibited thetake of nautiluses but nevertheless, harvests are going on. An Appendix II listing
will not change the situation and therefore, Indonesia is encouraged tostrengthen its enforcement effort. Consultations were made with range States
but it is not clear that the main harvesting countries such as the Philippines andIndonesia support the proposal. Unless Indonesia and the Philippines support
the proposal, it should be rejected.
Prop.

49

Inclusion of the genus Polymita Cuban landsnails in Appendix I (Cuba)

The genus Polymita comprises six species. All of these land snail species areendemic to Cuba, some of which have a restricted distribution area. Habitats are15

fragmented. The snails in the genus Polymita has long been protected in Cuba
but there have been illegal trade in these species, mainly destined for the US
and Canada. Due to the recent progress in the relationship between Cuba andthe US, many tourists are expected to visit Cuba. Inclusion of the genus in
Appendix I would contribute to the conservation of these snails. The proposal
should be adopted. Habitat destruction and fragmentation are main threats tothe species. Therefore, listing in Appendix I itself will not solve the problem thesnails are facing. Cuba should develop an overall management programme toconserve these species.
Prop. Inclusion of the genus Beaucarmea ponytail palms in Appendix II
50 (Mexico)
The genus Beaucarmea consists of eleven species. These species are
distributed in Mexico, Honduras and probably in Nicaragua. They are planted as
ornament plants mainly in Europe and North America. Insufficient information isprovided by the proponent on the population size, trends and trade status. In
addition, it seems unlikely that the species meets the Appendix II listing criteria.
The proposal should be rejected.
Prop. Deletion of Maury’s tillandsia Tillandsia mauryana from Appendix II
51 (Mexico)
The Maury’s tillandsia is endemic to Mexico. There are no records of national
utilization. In addition, no export was recorded. Therefore, the species does notmeet the Appendix II listing criteria. The Plants Committee endorsed the deletionof the species from Appendix II at its 21st meeting. The proposal should be
adopted.
Prop. Transfer of fishhook cacti Sclerocactus spinosior ssp. blainei, S.
52 cloverae and S. sileri from Appendix II to Appendix I (USA)The three fishhook cacti species are endemic to the US with a restricted range.
As is the case with the previous proposal (Prop. 51), these species have been
subject to the Periodic Review process. The Plants Committee recommended atransfer of the three species from Appendix II to Appendix I. The proponent
consulted all range States (Arizona, Colorado, Navajo Nation, Nevada, New
Mexico and Utah) but it is not clear from the supporting statement whether therange States support the proposal. On the condition that these range States
support the proposal, it should be adopted.
Prop. Amendment of the annotation to the listings of Siamese rosewood
53 Dalbergia cochinchinensis listed in Appendix II (Thailand)
The proposal aims to replace the current annotation (#5) with #4. The annotation#5 is only for logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets. The Siamese rosewood was16

listed in Appendix II in 2013 with an annotation restricting the listing to “log, sawn
wood and veneer sheets.” An analysis of the exports from range States revealed
that the species were exported in the form of processed products such as
furniture, which are not covered by the current annotation. If the proposal isadopted, these products will also be subject to CITES control. The proposal
should be adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of thirteen species in the genus Dalbergia in Appendix II
54 (Mexico)
The proponent aims to include thirteen species in the genus Dalbergia in
Appendix II that occur in Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Four species are endemic to Mexico. Many
Dalbergia species are listed in CITES Appendices. Although little information isavailable on the population size and trade status, there seems to be international
trade in these species. Due to their resemblance, it is difficult to distinguishbetween those in CITES Appendices and non-listed species. It should be notedthat at its 22nd meeting held in 2016, the Plants Committee endorsed listings ofthese thirteen species in Appendix II. It is recommended that the proposal be
adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of non-CITES species in the genus Dalbergia in Appendix II
55 (Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Kenya)
The genus Dalbergia comprises about 250 species. The genus occurs in thetropical regions of Central and South America, Africa and Asia. Sixty-one species
in the genus Dalbergia are already included in CITES Appendices. In addition,
Mexico proposes to list another thirteen species at CoP17. Because ofidentification problem, it is appropriate to list all Dalbergia species in Appendices.
By doing so, it becomes easier for CITES authorities to control these species.
The proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of bubingas Guibourtia tessmannii, G. pellegriniana and G.
56 demeusei in Appendix II (EU, Gabon)

The proposal aims to list three species in the genus Guibourtia in Appendix II.
The species are traded internationally, destined mainly for China where thetimber of these species is used. G. tessmannii and G. pellegriniana are proposedin accordance with the Appendix II listing criteria Criterion A2a and G. demeuseiin accordance with Criterion A2b. Little is known of the population size of thesethree species but G. tessmannii and G. pellegriniana are considered to be in
decline. There is increased demand for the timbers of these species. The three
species meet the Appendix II listing criteria and as such, the proposal should be
adopted.

17

Prop. Inclusion of African rosewood Pterocarpus erinaceus in Appendix II
Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, EU, Guinea, Guinea57 (Benin,
Bissau, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo)
The African rosewood is currently listed in Appendix III. An Appendix III listing
was made at the request of Senegal early this year. The species occurs not onlyin Senegal but in Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina
Faso, Ghana, Niger, Benin, Togo, Nigeria and Cameroon. Senegal madeextensive consultations with these range States. At its 22nd meeting, the Plants
Committee recommended that a proposal to list the species in Appendix II be
submitted. This proposal should be adopted.
Prop. Inclusion of Grandidier’s baobab Adansonia grandidieri in Appendix II
58 (Madagascar)
Seven baobab species occur in Madagascar, six of which are endemic. The
proponent proposes to list A. grandidieri in Appendix II. According to the
supporting statement, no data on illegal trade have been recorded. The mainthreats are local consumption and habitat loss, which can not be regulated by
CITES. It seems unlikely that the species meets the Appendix II listing criteria.
The proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

59

Inclusion of Algerian fir Abies nimidica in Appendix I (Algeria)

The proponent proposes to list the Algerian fir in Appendix I. The supportingstatement is poorly documented. There is no explanation why an Appendix I
listing is necessary. The proponent does not indicate any relationship withinternational trade. Even if the species is listed in CITES Appendices, CITES has
nothing to do to assist the proponent. The problem Algeria is facing with regard
to this species must be solved internally. Under the circumstances, the proposal
should be rejected.
Prop. Amendment of the annotation to the listings of agarwoods Aquilaria
60 spp. and Gyrinops spp. in Appendix II (USA)The proposal aims to amend the current annotation to the listing of Aquilaria spp.
and Gyrinops spp. in Appendix II. Under the current annotation, finished products
packaged and ready for retail trade are exempted from an Appendix II listing.
The proponent’s intention is to include wood chips in Appendix II even though
they are packaged, so that wood chips can become subject to CITES control.
The proposal should be adopted.

18

Prop. Inclusion of Natal ginger Siphonochilus aethiopicus populations ofAfrica, Swaziland, Mozambique and Zimbabwe in Appendix II
61 South(South Africa)
The Natal ginger is widely distributed in Africa. Its rhizomes are used as herbal
medicine. The proponent proposes to list the populations of South Africa,
Swaziland, Mozambique and Zimbabwe in Appendix II. Although the total
population is unknown, international trade in rhizomes exists, in particular among
these countries. Listing the populations in Appendix II will allow South Africa andothers to monitor trade levels. The proposal should be adopted. The proponent
consulted all range States of the species. Kenya suggested that all populations
should be included in Appendix II. The proponent may wish to submit a proposal
to this effect at CoP18.
Prop. Amendment of the annotation to the listing of holy wood Bulnesia
62 sarmientoi in Appendix II (USA)At CoP15, Argentina proposed to include Bulnesia sarmientoi in Appendix II,
which was adopted with the annotation “logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets,
powder and extracts.” The species occurs in Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay andArgentina. The term ‘exracts’ has been subject to discussions at the Standing
Committee, Plants Committee and Conference of the Parties. This proposal is inline with the outcome of such discussions. The proposal should be adopted.

19