GGT’S RECOMMENDATIONSON THE AMENDMENT PROPOSALSFOR CONSIDERATION AT THE SIXTEENTH MEETING
OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO CITES(Bangkok, 2013)

GLOBAL GUARDIAN TRUST

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Species		
Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata
Abruzzo chamois
Vicugna vicugna
vicuñaUrsus maritimus
polar bear
Pteropus brunneus
Percy Island flying-fox
Thylacinus cynocephalus
thylacin
Onychogalea lunata
nailtail walabby
Caloprymnus campestrisdesert kangaroo
Chaeropus ecaudatus
pig-footed bandicoot
Macrotis leucura
lesser bilby
Ceratotherium simum s.
white rhinoceros
Loxodonta africana
African elephant
Loxodonta africana
African elephant
Trichechus senegalensis
W. African manatee
Caracara lutosa
Guadalupe caracara
Gallus sonneratii
grey junglefowl
Ithaginis cruentus
blood pheasantLophura imperialis
imperial pheasantTetraogallus caspius
Caspian snowcock
Tetraogallus tibetanus
Tibetan snowcock
Tympanuchus cupido
a. greater prairie chicken

Amendment
I → II
I → II
II → I
II → 0
I→0
I→0
I→0
I→0
I→0
annotation
I → II
annotation
II → I
II → 0II → 0II → 0I→0I → II
I → II
I → IISUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
withdrawn
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

21 Campephilus imperialis
imperial woodpecker
laughing owl
22 Sceloglaux albifacies
American crocodile
23 Crocodylus acutus
saltwater crocodile
24 Crocodylus porosus
Siamese crocodile
25 Crocodylus siamensis
geckos26 Naultinus spp.
pit viper
27 Protobothrops mangshanensis
snake-necked turtle
28 Chelodina mccordi
spotted turtle
29 Clemmys guttata
Blanding’s turtle
30 Emydoidea blandingii
diamondback terrapin
31 Malaclemys terrapin32		
ten species of turtles
Indochinese box turtle
33 Cuora galbinifrons
Ryukyu leaf turtle
34 Geoemyda japonica
Annam pond turtle
35 Mauremys annamensis
big-headed turtle
36 Platysternidae
Burmese star tortoises
37 Geochelone platynota
38		
softshell turtles
frog
39 Epipedobates machalillas. gastric-brooding frog
40 Rheobatrachus silus
n.gast-brooding frog
41 Rheobatrachus vitellinus
whitetip shark
42 Carcharhinus longimanus
I→0
II → 0I → II
I → II
I → II
0 → II
0 → II
II → I
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II, quota
II → I
0 → II
II → I
II → I
II → I
0 → II, II → I
0 → II
II → 0II → 00 → II

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

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64

Sphyma lewini, etc.
hammerhead shark
Lamna nasus
porbeagle
Pristis microdon
freshwater sawfish
Manta spp.
manta rays
Paratrygon aiereba
discus ray
P. motoro, P. schroederi
river stingrays
Papilio hospiton
Corsican swallowtail
Yucca queretaroensis
Queretaro yucca
Operculicarya decaryijabihyHoodia spp.
hoodiasPanax ginseng and P. quinquefolius
ginsengs
Tillandsia kautskyi
tillandsia
Tillandsia sprengeliana
tillandsia
Tillandsia sucrei
tillandsia
Dudleya stolonifera, D. traskiae
dudleyas
Diospyros spp.
ebonies
Aniba rosaeodora
Brazilian rosewood
Dalbergia cochinchinensis
rosewood
Dalbergia retusa, D.granadillorosewoods
Dalbergia stevensonii
Honduras rosewood
Dalbergia spp.
rosewoods
Senna meridionalis
andapary
0,III → II
III → II
II → I
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
I → II
0 → II
0 → II
annotation
annotation
II → 0II → 0II → 0II → 00 → II
annotation
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II

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

65
66
67
68
69
70
71

Adenia firingalavensis
bottle liana
Adenia subsessilifolia
katakata
Uncarina grandidieri
anakoraky
Uncarina stellulifera
farehitsy
Osyris lanceolata
African sandalwood
Aquilaria spp., Gyrinops spp.
agarwoods
Cyphostemma lazalaza
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
0 → II
annotation
0 → II

No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No

RECOMMENDATIONS
Prop.

1

Transfer of Abruzzo chamois Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata from
Appendix I to Appendix II (Denmark)This subspecies is endemic to Italy and was included in Appendix I at the
Plenipotentiary meeting in Washington in 1973. The rest of the species are notlisted in any Appendix. Although the population is small and the range isrestricted, the former is increasing and the latter expanding. In this regard, Italy
should be commended for their improved management. The species as a whole
does not meet any of the CITES criteria. It is unlikely that the transfer of thesubspecies to Appendix II will stimulate the international trade for commercial
purposes. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

2

Transfer of the vicuña Vicugna vicugna population of Ecuador from
Appendix I to Appendix II (Ecuador)

The vicuña was listed in Appendix I in 1973. Since then, the geographicalpopulations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia have been transferredfrom Appendix I to Appendix II. The vicuña of Ecuador is the only one which
remains in Appendix I. Conservation programmes have been in place by theGovernment in co-operation with local communities. The population has
increased and is estimated 5,000 approximately. Vicuña fibre will be sheered
from live animals. The transfer of its population from Appendix I to Appendix II
will create further incentives to the local communities. The proposal should be
adopted.
Prop.

3

Transfer of polar bear Ursus maritimus from Appendix II to Appendix I(USA)

The polar bear is distributed in Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, RussianFederation and the United States. Polar bears are hunted by aboriginal people
for subsistence purposes. Specimens are traded internationally as a by-productof subsistence hunting. Even if the species is transferred, hunting will continue.
This is the second proposal on the polar bear made by the USA. At CoP15, theUSA proposed to transfer the species from Appendix II to Appendix I but the
proposal was rejected. According to the present proposal, of the five range
states, Canada, Greenland and Norway are not in agreement with the USA. The
USA identified loss of habitat as the main threat to the species. Deterioration of
habitat, i.e., loss of sea ice, is caused by global warming. GGT was opposed tothe proposal submitted at CoP15. Our position remains unchanged. The USA is
the second largest country in terms of the emission of greenhouse effect gases
and as such, the USA should take its own responsibility. The proposal should be
rejected.

1

Prop.

4

Deletion of Percy Island flying-fox Pteropus brunneus from Appendix
II (Australia)

This proposal was submitted at the request of the Animals Committee. The
Percy Island flying-fox was described erroneously as a new species in 1878 andtherefore, is not a valid species. If it ever existed, it is now extinct. The proposal
should be adopted.
Prop.

5

Deletion of thylacine Thylacinus cynocephalus from Appendix I(Australia)

This proposal was submitted at the request of the Animals Committee. By 1789,
the thylacine had been extirpated from the mainland Australia and Tasmania was
the only place where it survived in small number. It is believed that in Tasmania,
the thylacine became extinct by 1936. There is no need to keep the species
listed in CITES Appendices. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

6

Deletion of crescent nailtail walabby Onychogalea lunata from
Appendix I (Australia)

This proposal is of the same nature as the previous one and was submitted at
the request of the Animals Committee. The crescent nailtail walabby had been
extirpated by 1956 and is considered to be extinct. There is no need to list the
species in CITES Appendices. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

7

Deletion of desert kangaroo Caloprymnus campestris from Appendix I(Australia)

This proposal is of the same nature as Prop. 5 and Prop. 6. It was submitted at
the request of the Animals Committee. The last reliable sighting of the desert rat
kangaroo was in 1935. It is considered that the species is now extinct. The
proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

8

Deletion of pig-footed bandicoot Chaeropus ecaudatus from Appendix
I (Australia)

This proposal is of the same nature as mentioned above. It was submitted at therequest of the Animals Committee. It is believed that the pig-footed bandicoot
had been extirpated by 1960s. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

9

Deletion of lesser bilby Macrotis leucura from Appendix I (Australia)

This proposal is of the same nature as the previous ones. It was submitted at therequest of the Animals Committee. It is believed that the lesser bilby had been
extirpated by 1967. The proposal should be adopted.
2

Prop.

10

Amendment of the annotation to southern white rhinoceros
Ceratotherium simum simum (Kenya)

The southern white rhinoceros populations of South Africa and Swaziland arelisted in Appendix II. Live animals and hunting trophies are allowed to enterinternational trade. The wild population of the southern white rhinoceros,
including the population of Kenya, originates from a remnant population in South
Africa. Almost 95 % of the total population occurs in South Africa. The fate ofsouthern white rhinoceroses should be determined by South Africa, certainly not
by Kenya nor by CoP. South Africa does not support Kenya’s proposal. Depriving
the aspect of international trade from trophy hunting will have a negative impact
on the conservation of rhinoceroses. Even if Kenya’s proposal is adopted, illegal
trade in rhino horns will continue to exist because trade is not allowed under
CITES. What Kenya needs to do is to abandon its trade ban policy. The proposal
should be rejected.
Prop.

11

Transfer of the Tanzania population of African elephant Loxodonta
africana from Appendix I to Appendix II (Tanzania)

This proposal has been withdrawn by Tanzania. The supporting statement iswell documented and very persuasive. Tanzania is one of the seven countries
which submitted proposals in 1989 to transfer the African elephant from
Appendix II to Appendix I. Since then, the elephant population of Tanzania has
increased from 55,000 (1989) to 110,000 (2009). Tanzania’s effort andcommitment to conservation are greatly commendable. Tanzania wishes to tradeivories and other products to further enhance its conservation effort. At CoP15,
the Conference of the Parties rejected the proposals put forward by Tanzania
and Zambia and does not allow ivory trade from the four countries whose
populations are already listed in Appendix II. Since 1975, international trade inrhino horns has been prohibited. Nevertheless, the conservation status has not
improved. By continuing to reject proposals on the African elephant, theConference of the Parties is driving the elephant to the same doom as being
taken by rhinos.
Prop.

12

Amendment of the annotation to African elephant Loxodonta africana(Burkina Faso, Togo, Mali, Kenya)

Again, we are appalled to see that Kenya and others have repeatedly submitted
proposals to prevent ivory trade. The proposal was submitted against the spirit
reached at CoP14 in The Hague. The proponents make a reference to thepreambular paragraph of Resolution Conf. 9.24: “By virtue of the precautionary
approach and in cases of uncertainty regarding the status of a species or the
impact of trade on the conservation of a species, the Parties shall act in the bestinterest of the conservation of the species concerned and, when considering
proposals to amend Appendix I or II, adopt measures that are proportionate to
the anticipated risks to the species”. It should be pointed out that this paragraph3

does not mean that in cases of uncertainty, international trade should not be
permitted. The best interest of the conservation of the African elephant will beachieved through allowing international trade in ivory with an annual export
quota. By allowing ivory trade on a regular basis, exporting countries will be able
to establish more pragmatic, long-term elephant conservation programmes,
which is indeed in the best interest of the conservation of the African elephant.
The adoption of this proposal will have extremely negative impacts on all therange states which are promoting elephant conservation through sustainable
management. The proposal does not preclude a possibility of any country
submitting downlisting proposals without asking for ivory trade. It is doubtful thatthe proponents will support such proposals. It is strongly recommended that the
proposal be rejected.
Prop.

13

Transfer of West African manatees Trichechus senegalensis from
Appendix II to Appendix I (Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone)

As admitted by the proponents, there is little information on the population size
and trend of the West African manatee and as such, it is not possible to judge if
the species meets the Appendix I criteria. The species is classified as a fully
protected species by all range states and its trade is prohibited. Nevertheless, it
seems that manatee meat is illegally sold and traded internationally. The range
states should improve their enforcement activities. Without such efforts, listing inAppendix I would not change the current status of the West African manatee.
Under the circumstances, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

14

Deletion of Guadalupe caracara Caracara lutosa from Appendix II(Mexico)The Guadalupe caracara was listed in Appendix II in 1973. It is believed that the
species had been extirpated by 1900. At the 26th meeting of the Animals
Committee, Mexico recommended that the species be deleted from CITES
Appendix and this recommendation was endorsed by the Animals Committee.
Accordingly, the proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

15

Deletion of grey junglefowl Gallus sonneratii from Appendix II(Switzerland)This proposal was submitted by Switzerland at the request of the Animals
Committee. The species is endemic to India but is widely distributed in thatcountry. The population size is unknown but it seems that the species is locallycommon. In addition, IUCN classified the species as “Least Concern”. At its 26th
meeting, the Animals Committee recommended that the species be deleted from
Appendix II. The proposal should be adopted.

4

Prop.

16

Deletion of blood pheasant Ithaginis cruentus from Appendix II(Switzerland)

As is the case with Prop.15, the Animals Committee recommended that the
blood pheasant be deleted from Appendix II. The species is distributed in South
Asia. The overall population size has not been determined but the species
seems common in some areas. IUCN classified the species as “Least Concern”.
The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

17

Deletion of imperial pheasant Lophura imperialis from Appendix I(Switzerland)

The imperial pheasant was first described in 1924 based on a pair captured inViet Nam. However, the recent study revealed that it ws not a valid species but
was a natural hybrid between Lophura edwardsi and Lophura nycthemera. At its
26th meeting, the Animals Committee recommended that this ‘species’ bedeleted from Appendix I. There is no need to list the imperial pheasant in CITES
Appendices because it is not a valid species. It should be pointed out that
Lophura edwardsi is listed in Appendix I and therefore, the hybrid imperial
pheasant is treated as Appendix I species. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

18

Transfer of Caspian snowcock Tetraogallus caspius from Appendix I
to Appendix II (Switzerland)

The snowcock is distributed in the mountains from Turkey to Turkmenistan. The
species does not meet the biological criteria for listing in Appendix I because thepopulation is not small and the range is large. The Animals Committee reviewed
the status of the species and recommended that it be transferred from Appendix
I to Appendix II. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

19

Transfer of Tibetan snowcock Tetraogallus tibetanus from Appendix I
to Appendix II (Switzerland)

The Tibetan snowcock is widely distributed from Tajikistan to China. The species
does not meet the biological criteria for listing in Appendix I because it isabundant and the range is very large. The Animals Committee reviewed thestatus of the species and recommended that it be transferred from Appendix I toAppendix II. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

20

Transfer of Attwater’s greater prairie chicken Tympanuchus cupido
attwateri from Appendix I to Appendix II (Switzerland)

The Attwater’s greater prairie chicken is endemic to the USA. This subspecies
does meet the biological criteria for Appendix I listing because the population isvery small. The proposal was submitted by Switzerland but was drafted by theUSA, which considers that no trade is expected as a result of the transfer of this5subspecies to Appendix II. Under the circumstances, the proposal should be
adopted.
Prop.

21

Deletion of imperial woodpecker Campephilus imperialis from
Appendix I (Mexico)

The imperial woodpecker is endemic to Mexico. It is considered that it had been
extirpated by more than 50 years ago. At its 26th meeting, the Animals
Committee endorsed this proposal. Therefore, the proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

22

Deletion of laughing owls Sceloglaux albifacies from Appendix II (New
Zealand)

The laughing owl is endemic to New Zealand. The last known laughing owl was
found dead in 1914. Since then, no owl has been recorded in spite of theexhaustive surveys and now the species is considered to be extinct. At its 26th
meeting, the Animals Committee recommended that the species be deleted from
Appendix II. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

23

Transfer of the Bay of Cispata population of American crocodiles
Crocodylus acutus from Appendix I to Appendix II (Colombia)

While the Cuban population of the American crocodile is listed in Appendix II, allother populations are listed in Appendix I. In Colombia, six facilities have beenregistered with the CITES Secretariat for breeding the American crocodile incaptivity. Colombia is asking to transfer the population of the Bay of Cispata toAppendix II so that crocodiles from the Bay of Cispata can be exported in thenear future. The Bay of Cispata is covered by mangrove forests and contains
rich biodiversity. Conservation programmes have been in place by Colombian
Government in co-operation with local communities. A key to the success of the
programmes is the involvement of local communities in conservation activities. It
is apparent that the population does not meet the biological criteria for listing inAppendix I. The proposal should be adopted. However, the supportingstatement does not indicate details of future harvesting programmes. It is also
recommended that Colombia submit another proposal to include all otherpopulations in Appendix II at future meetings. As a result, split-listings within acountry will be avoided.
Prop.

24

Transfer of saltwater crocodile Crocodylus porosus from Appendix I toAppendix II with a zero quota for wild specimens (Thailand)

The saltwater crocodile widely occurs from India through Thailand to Australia.
The populations of Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea are listed inAppendix II and the rest of the species is listed in Appendix I. It is evident thatthe species as a whole does not meet the biological criteria for listing inAppendix I. However, the wild population in Thailand is approximately 200 only

6

and its distribution areas are fragmented. Transferring to Appendix II with a zeroquota will not change the present situation and Thai’s intention is not clear fromthe supporting statement. There should be other reasons for this proposal. The
proposal may be premature. Unless persuasive explanations are provided by
Thailand, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

25

Transfer of Siamese crocodile Crocodylus siamensis from Appendix I
to Appendix II with a zero quota for wild specimens (Thailand)

The status of the Siamese crocodile in Thailand is similar to that of the saltwater
crocodile. The total population in Thailand is about 200 only. The Thai populationconsists of five fragmented populations and does meet the biological criteria forlisting in Appendix I. As is the case with its saltwater crocodile population, Thai’s
intention is unclear from the supporting statement. For the same reason, theproposal should be rejected. However, we recommend that Thai consider apossibility of developing ranching programmes aiming at future transfer of theboth species to Appendix II.
Prop.

26

Inclusion of all species of geckos in the genus Naultinus in Appendix II(New Zealand)Nine gecko species in the genus Naultinus were included in Appendix III by New
Zealand in 2003. They are endemic to the country and all the species areprotected. Although Appendix II is practically identical to Appendix III, an
Appendix II listing would make importing countries to pay more attention to thetransaction in question. We recommend that the proposal be adopted. However,
the main reasons for population decline are predation by invasive species andhabitat loss/degradation and as such, New Zealand needs to make further effort
in addressing these problems.
Prop.

27

Inclusion of Mangshan pit viper Protobothrops mangshanensis in
Appendix II (China)

The Mangshan pit viper was described as a new species in 1989. The species isbelieved to be endemic to Mt. Mang in southern China. The population size issmall and is subject to international trade. Although the species is protected, it
seems that animals are illegally caught for aquarium and pet trade. We
recommend that the proposal be adopted.
Prop.

28

Transfer of Roti Island snake-necked turtle Chelodina mccordi from
Appendix II to Appendix I (USA)The Roti Island snake-headed turtle was first described in 1994. The species isendemic to Indonesia (Roti Island only) and Timor-Leste. The species has a
restricted area of distribution but little is known of the population size. The
species is harvested for the international pet trade market including the USA, EU
7

and Japan. It seems the species meets the criteria for Appendix I listing. The
proponent consulted with Indonesia and Timor-Leste but has not received any
information on the species. Also, it is not clear if Indonesia and Timor-Leste
support the proposal. Under the circumstances, we recommend that the
proposal be rejected.
Prop.

29

Inclusion of spotted turtle Clemmys guttata in Appendix II (USA)The species is distributed in Canada and the USA. In Canada, its distribution isrestricted to Ontario and Quebec. In the USA, however, it is distributed widely inthe eastern part of the country. According to the supporting statement, there isno population estimate for the entire USA. Live animals have been exported fromthe USA and the export volume has steadily increased since 1999. By allocating
annual quotas to the relevant States, the USA could achieve its objective without
listing in Appendix II. The proponent consulted with all States and Canada but
does not mention in the supporting statement whether they support the proposal.
As such, we recommend that the proposal be rejected.
Prop.

30

Inclusion of Blanding’s turtle Emydoidea blandingii in Appendix II(USA)

The Blanding’s turtle is found in Canada and the USA. There is no population
estimate for the entire USA. The nature of this proposal is similar to that of theprevious proposal. The proponent consulted with all States and Canada but does
not mention in the supporting statement whether they support the proposal. For
the same reason as the previous one, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

31

Inclusion of diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin in Appendix II(USA)

The diamondback terrapin is found widely in the eastern part of the USA andinhabits brackish coastal waters. The proponent states that the US population
size is presumed to exceed 100,000. The nature of this proposal is similar to
those of the previous proposals. The proponent consulted with all States within
the USA but does not mention in the supporting statement whether they support
the proposal. For the same reason as the previous ones, the proposal should be
rejected. What the USA needs to do is to establish management programmes
for these species and introduce appropriate regulations. We do not understand
why the USA proposes to list these species in Appendix II.
Prop.

32

Inclusion of ten species of turtles in Appendix II and establishing zeroquotas for already-listed fifteen species (China, USA)

In considering the number of species (25) which are subject to this proposal, we
feel the supporting statement is poorly documented. The proponent does not8

provide sufficient information on several aspects including population size andpopulation trends. Therefore, it is difficult to judge if the proposal is appropriate.
Among the 25 species, Japan submitted a proposal for Ryukyu leaf turtle
Geoemyda japonica and Viet Nam submitted proposals for Indochinese box
turtle Cuora galbinifrons and Annam pond turtle Mauremys annamensis. As
mentioned below, Prop. 34 should be adopted. Except for this species, theproposal should be rejected.
Prop.

33

Transfer of Indochinese box turtle Cuora galbinifrons from Appendix II
to Appendix I. (Viet Nam)

The Indochinese box turtle is known to be distributed in China, Lao and Viet
Nam. Although little is known of the status, the population size seems very small.
The species is protected in China and Lao but not protected in Viet Nam.
According to the UNEP-WCMC CITES trade database, Hong Kong was the main
exporting country. From 2007 to 2011, the number of specimens which enteredinternational trade was 43 only with in average 8.6 per annum. However, many
specimens are sold in markets and it is believed that illegal trade does exist.
Without efforts to strengthen border control and internal enforcement, an
Appendix I listing would not improve the situation. It is premature to transfer the
species from Appendix II to Appendix I. What Viet Nam needs to do is tostrengthen their efforts and as such, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

34

Inclusion of Ryukyu leaf turtle Geoemyda japonica in Appendix II witha zero annual export quota for primarily commercial purposes for wildcaught specimens. (Japan)

The Ryukyu leaf turtle is endemic to Japan and the distribution is restricted to
Okinawa, Kume and Tokashiki Islands. The species is protected under the Law
for the Protection of Cultural Properties. Nevertheless, live animals are sold in
China, Hong Kong, France and the USA. Listing in Appendix II would offer an
opportunity for Japan to control illegal trade in the species and send a warning toother countries that Japan does not allow the take of wild animals. As such, theproposal should be adopted. According to the supporting statement, however,
the major threats to the species are habitat loss and degradation. This problem
should seriously be addressed by Japan’s authorities.
Prop.

35

Transfer of Annam pond turtle Mauremys annamensis from Appendix
II to Appendix I. (Viet Nam)

The Annam pond turtle is endemic to Viet Nam and its distribution is restricted tocentral Viet Nam. No scientific information is available on the population size but
it is believed that the population size is very small. Acquisition of the specimens
for commercial purposes is prohibited under the regulation of Viet Nam (2006).
Since 2002, 172 animals have been exported from Switzerland, China,
Germany, USA and Viet Nam. During 7 surveys from August 2006 to March
9

2008, 11 to 50 animals were on sale in Guangzhou. Despite an Appendix II
listing, it seems that illegal trade continues to occur. Listing in Appendix I would
not change the present situation. Under the circumstances, the proposal should
be rejected.
Prop.

36

Transfer of the family Platysternidae from Appendix II to Appendix I(USA, Viet Nam)

The big-headed turtle Platysternon megacephalum was, as a species, includedin Appendix II at COP 12 (Santiago, 2002). The family Platysternidae is not listed
in Appendix II. Even though the big-headed turtle is the only species in thefamily, it is procedurally incorrect to transfer a non-listed taxon from Appendix II
to Appendix I. The species is distributed mainly in China and partly in northern
Southeast Asia. With regard to national legal instruments, the proponent referredto the proposal submitted at CoP12 but did not include them in the present
proposal, which is therefore incomplete. China, the main range state is opposedto the proposal and suggests an Appendix II listing with a zero quota. We believe
China’s suggestion is more appropriate and as such, the proposal should be
rejected as it stands.
Prop.

37

Transfer of Burmese star tortoise Geochelone platynota from
Appendix II to Appendix I (USA)The Burmese star tortoise is endemic to central Myanmar and has a very
restricted area of distribution. According to the supporting statement, the species
is ecologically extinct in the wild. The animals have been exploited forsubsistence and international pet trade. Commercial harvest is not allowed under
Myanmar’s law but subsistence harvest of the species is permitted. Myanmar
needs to modify its regulation to include subsistence harvest. The species has
been listed in Appendix II since 1975. Myanmar acceded to CITES in 1997. The
proponent indicates data on legal trade from 1986 to 2011 but fails to provide
detailed analysis. The proponent sent a consultation letter to Myanmar but has
not received a response. Without knowing Myanmar’s position, it is difficult to
support the proposal. Under the circumstances, we recommend the proposal berejected.
Prop.

38

Inclusion of eight softshell turtle species in Appendix II and transfer of
two softshell turtle species from Appendix II to Appendix I (China,
USA)

This proposal is very complex and even confusing. The proponents should havedivided the present proposal into two separate documents, one for inclusion in
Appendix II and the other for transfer to Appendix I. The proponent also sent
consultation letters to the countries which are not range states of the species
subject to this proposal. At a glance, it seems many range states support the
proposal but this is not the case. Compared to the number of species subject to10this proposal, the supporting statement is poorly documented. The proponents
admit that few population studies have been conducted on turtles in the family
Trionychidae. Referring to IUCN Redlist category, the proponents mentioned that
Pelodiscus axenaria, P. maackii and P. parviformis are for ‘Data Deficient’.
Nevertheless, they concluded that these three species qualify for inclusion in
Appendix II. We do not understand the logic behind this conclusion. Concerning
Chitra species, the proponents do not provide quantitative data. Overall, thesupporting statement is not compelling and as such, we recommend that the
proposal be rejected.
Prop.

39

Inclusion of a frog species Epipedobates machalilla in Appendix II(Ecuador)This frog species was first described as Colostethus machalilla in 1995 but laterreclassified as Epipedobates machalilla. All species in the genus Epipedobates
are already listed in Appendix II. At its 25th meeting, the Animals Committee
recommended that a proposal be prepared to include this species in Appendix II.
There is a compelling reason for inclusion of the species in Appendix II and
therefore, the proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

40

Deletion of southern gastric-brooding frog Rheobatrachus silus from
Appendix II (Australia)

This proposal was submitted at the request of the Animals Committee. The
southern gastric-brooding frog was distributed in Australia. The species had
been extremely rare. Since 1981, there has been no record on sighting and thespecies is considered extinct. The species is listed as Extinct by both Australia
and IUCN. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

41

Deletion of northern gastric-brooding frog Rheobatrachus vitellinus
from Appendix II (Australia)

This proposal was submitted at the request of the Animals Committee. The
northern gastric-brooding frog was distributed in Australia. The species was
described in 1984 and was common across its range. Since then, it seems thatthe population has started declining and now the species is considered to havebeen extirpated. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

42

Inclusion of oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus in
Appendix II (Brazil, Colombia, USA)A proposal to list the oceanic whitetip shark was first submitted at CoP15 byPalau and the USA and was rejected. The species occurs in tropical andsubtropical waters worldwide. According to the supporting statement, thepopulation of this pelagic species is over-exploited in the central and western
Pacific Ocean but the population size is unknown in other areas. The sharks are11caught as bycatch in high seas pelagic fisheries and the fins are retained forinternational trade. It is stipulated in the supporting statement that most Regional
Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) prohibit shark finning at sea,
including the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas(ICCAT), the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Western
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). These RFMOs havealready introduced strict measures. At a national level, several countries
prohibited shark finning and trade in fins. Like other shark species, listing theoceanic whitetip shark in Appendix II will create unnecessary procedural burden
on Management Authorities and Customs, thus depriving such CITES-related
authorities of resources, which could otherwise be utilized for other species ofmore conservation priority. It is unlikely that an Appendix II listing of the oceanic
whitetip shark will complement the measures taken by these RFMOs. The
proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

43

Inclusion of scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyma lewini and othertwo species in Appendix II (Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras)

A proposal to list hammerhead sharks was previously submitted at CoP15 byPalau and the USA and was rejected. In 2012, Costa Rica listed the scalloped
hammerhead shark Sphyma lewini in CITES Appendix III. The scalloped
hammerhead shark is distributed worldwide and occurs in warm temperate andtropical coastal waters. It seems that some populations in the Pacific Ocean
meet the criteria for an Appendix II listing but the species as a whole does notmeet the criteria. The proponents suggest that Sphyma lewini be listed inaccordance with Criterion A in Annex 2a of Resolution Conf. 9.24 and other four
species with Criterion A in Annex 2b. Nevertheless, the supporting statement
mentions that few population assessments are available globally for S. lewini.
Although the proponents say that estimates of trends in abundance of S. lewini
are available for this species (Annex 2), the table shown as Annex 2 is forSphyma spp. complex. According to the supporting statement, many countries
have banned finning and shark fishing. Most of the RFMOs have implemented
finning bans. FAO and RFMOs should be the prime organization responsible forshark fisheries. Like other shark species, listing the oceanic whitetip shark in
Appendix II will create unnecessary procedural burden on Management
Authorities and Customs, thus depriving such CITES-related authorities ofresources, which could otherwise be utilized for other species of moreconservation priority. Under the circumstances, we recommend that the proposal
be rejected.
Prop.

44

Inclusion of porbeagle Lamna nasus in Appendix II (Denmark)Similar proposals were rejected at CoP14 and CoP15. The porbeagle has
already been listed in Appendix III since last year. To the contrary, the supportingstatement mentions that in the absence of a CITES listing there is no reliable12mechanism to track trends in catch and trade of L. nasus. The porbeagle isdistributed in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean and the Southern
Ocean. The population of the northern Atlantic has been depleted andaccordingly, management measures have been introduced by many countries.
The supporting statement indicates that quota management has been in place inCanada since 2002, in the US since 1999, in New Zealand since 2004 and in EU
since 2008. In 2010, EU established a zero quota. In the EEZ of Canada, thepopulation has stabilized. Thus, it is expected that porbeagle stock will recover.
Regrettably, it was only 2010 when a zero quota was set by EU, which is 3 years
after its first submission of the porbeagle proposal at CoP14 in 2007. With regard
to marine fish species subject to large-scale commercial fisheries, there aremany problems which have yet to be solved. For example, the proponent
recognizes a difficulty in implementation, suggesting 18 months delay in theentry into effect. Furthermore, EU States consume this shark for its meat and a‘look-alike’ problem need to be addressed. Even if EU keeps a zero fishing quota
within EU waters, EU will continue importing porbeagles for internal
consumption. The proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

45

Transfer of freshwater sawfishes Pristis microdon from Appendix II toAppendix I (Australia)

At CoP14 held in The Hague in 2007, Kenya and the USA submitted a proposal
to include all Pristis species in Appendix I. Australia was opposed to that
proposal as it stands and asked for listing Pristis microdon in Appendix II.
Australian amendment was supported by the Conference of the Parties and as aresult, all species in the family Pristidae were included in Appendix I with the
exception of Pristis microdon. Australia is now asking to transfer the species
from Appendix II to Appendix I. If adopted, the listing status will become simpler
by avoiding split-listings. However, listing the species in Appendix II is annotatedas “for the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in live animals toappropriate and acceptable aquaria primarily for conservation purposes”. Thismeans that there is no practical difference between the current situation and an
Appendix I listing. If Australia considers the export of the specimens is
problematic, then it should choose not to issue an export permit. We do not see
any reason for listing the species in Appendix I and as such, recommend the
proposal be rejected.
Prop.

46

Inclusion of manta rays in the genus Manta in Appendix II (Brazil,
Colombia, Ecuador)

Manta birostris used to be the only species belonging to the genus Manta but
was split to two different species (M. birostris and M. alfredi) in 2009. There may
be a third species. The manta rays are widely distributed in tropical, subtropicaland temperate waters. Insufficient information is available on population size,
population trends, trade, etc.. As a result, it is difficult to judge whether the
species are qualified for Appendix II listings. Ecuador sent consultation letters to13

range states but received responses from a small number of countries. We do
not know how other countries consider this proposal. Under the circumstances, it
is recommended that the proposal be rejected.
Prop.

47

Inclusion of discus ray Paratrygon aiereba in Appendix II (Colombia)

The discus ray is distributed widely in South America, occurring in freshwaters in
Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. The proponent fails toprovide any scientific data on population size and population trends. No concrete
data is given but it seems unlikely that the main threat to the species isinternational trade in ornament fishes. Indeed, the proponent admits that the
information on exports does not seem to show significant over-exploitation.
Therefore, listing the species in Appendix II will not improve the situation.
Management programmes should be established by the range states, which isconsidered more important. Therefore, we recommend the proposal be rejected.
Prop.

48

Inclusion of ocellate river stingray Potamotrygon motoro and rosetteriver stingray P. schroederi in Appendix II (Colombia, Ecuador)

The ocellate river stingray is widely found in freshwaters in Argentina, Bolivia,
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guyana, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname,Uruguay and Venezuela. The rosette river stingray is distributed in Brazil,
Colombia and Venezuela, occurring in freshwaters. Like Prop. 47, theproponents fail to provide any scientific data on population size and population
trends. No concrete data is given but it seems unlikely that the main threat to thespecies is international trade in ornament fishes. Indeed, the proponents admitthat the information on exports does not seem to show significant overexploitation. Therefore, listing the species in Appendix II will not benefit theconservation of the species. Management programmes should be established by
the range states, which is considered more important. Therefore, we recommend
the proposal be rejected.
Prop.

49

Transfer of Corsican swallowtail Papilio hospiton from Appendix I toAppendix II (Denmark)This proposal was submitted arising from the periodic review process ofAppendices and was endorsed by the Animals Committee. The Corsican
swallowtail is endemic to Corsica and Sardinia. The species is widespread andlocally abundant on the two islands. It has been reported that the population isstable. IUCN classified the species as ‘Least Concern’. The species is protectedboth in Italy and France. Transferring to Appendix II will therefore not have anegative impact on the species. The proposal should be adopted.

14

Prop.

50

Inclusion of Queretaro yucca Yucca queretaroensis in Appendix II(Mexico)The Queretaro yucca is endemic to central Mexico. The species is protected in
Mexico. According to the supporting statement, its use and exportation aresupposed to be regulated but the official record shows the specimens have been
exported. In this regard, internal co-ordination is required. Considering the size
and morphology of the plant, it should be easy to exercise a border control. The
problem could be solved by Mexico itself. However, it seems that there has been
increased international demand as pointed out by Switzerland. It is
recommended that the proposal be adopted.
Prop.

51

Inclusion of jabihy Operculicarya decaryi in Appendix II (Madagascar)

The jabihy Operculicarya decaryi is endemic to Madagascar. At CoP15,
Madagascar submitted a proposal to list the species in Appendix II but it waswithdrawn. The present proposal is poorly documented. Little quantitative data
are provided on population. The species is not protected nor managed. The
number of the specimens exported has recently increased. However, it seems
that export of the species is subject to the authorization of the Management
Authority. If Madagascar is concerned about the export volume, it should
establish an export quota. The proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

52

Amendment of the annotation to hoodias Hoodia spp. (Botswana,
Namibia, South Africa)

At CoP 13, Hoodia spp. was listed in Appendix II with annotation. According to
the supporting satement, the annotation in question has caused difficulties inparticular in importing countries. The intent of the proponents was not reflected
precisely in the annotation. The present proposal was submitted to make theirintention clearer. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

53

Amendment of the annotation to ginsengs Panax ginseng and P.
quinquefolius (USA)

Panax quinquefolius was included in Appendix II in 1973. The Russian
population of P. ginseng was listed in Appendix II at CoP10 in 2000. The
annotations for ginsengs have been subject to amendment and hence confusion.
This confusion was caused by deleting the exclusionary languages. The
proponent is seeking to add the wording “excluding manufactured parts orderivatives such as powders, pills, extracts, tonics, teas and confectionery”. The
proposal should be adopted.

15

Prop.

54

Deletion of tillandsia Tillandsia kautskyi from Appendix II (Brazil)

Tillandsia kautskyi was listed in Appendix II in 1992. The species is a rare
species occurring in some parts of Brazil but it seems unlikely that international
trade is a factor affecting the species. No information is provided on the status
and trends. However, since listing the species in 1992, no wild-taken specimen
has been traded. There is no justification to continue listing the species inAppendix II. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

55

Deletion of tillandsia Tillandsia sprengeliana from Appendix II (Brazil)

Tillandsia sprengeliana was listed in Appendix II in 1992. The species is a rare
species occurring in some parts of Brazil. No information is provided on thestatus and trends. It seems unlikely that international trade is a factor affecting
the species. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

56

Deletion of tillandsia Tillandsia sucrei from Appendix II (Brazil)

Tillandsia sucrei was listed in Appendix II in 1992. The species is a rare species
occurring in some parts of Brazil. No information is provided on the status andtrends. It seems unlikely that international trade is a factor affecting the species.
The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

57

Deletion of dudleyas Dudleya stolonifera and Dudleya traskiae from
Appendix II (USA)The two dudleya species were listed in Appendix I at CoP4 in 1983. Dudleya
stolonifera was transferred to Appendix II at CoP11 in 2000 and D. traskiae at
CoP 12 in 2002. These two species are endemic to the USA. They have arestricted area of distribution and their populations are small. When listed inAppendix I, trade in the plants was considered a significant threat. According to
the supporting statement, since the species were listed in 1983, there has been
only one export reported for 2,461 artificially propagated specimens from France
to Switzerland in 1985. Deletion of these species from Appendix II will not have anegative impact on the conservation of the species. The proposal should be
adopted.
Prop.

58

Inclusion of ebonies in the genus Diospyros in Appendix II(Madagascar)

According to the proposal, 550 species belong to the genus Diospyros. The
present proposal is asking to list 240 species, of which Diospyros ferrea is the
only species that is not endemic to Madagascar. In Annex 1 of the supporting16

statement, only 84 species are listed. In 2011, Madagascar listed 104 Diospyros
species in Appendix III. The proponent should mention the scientific names of all
species subject to the proposal. The supporting statement is confusing and iflisted in Appendix II, it will be difficult for importing countries to know which
species are subject to CITES. Already, 104 species are listed in Appendix III but
the effects of Appendix III listing are not clear from the proposal. We consider
that listing in Appendix II is premature and as such, the proposal should be
rejected.
Prop.

59

Amendment of the annotation to Brazilian rosewood Aniba
rosaeodora (Brazil)

The current annotation reads “Logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets, plywood andessential oil”. Brazil is asking to replace the term “essential oil” by “extracts”. This
proposal was submitted as a result of the deliberation held at the twentiethmeeting of the Plants Committee. The proposal should be adopted.
Prop.

60

Inclusion of Siamese rosewoods Dalbergia cochinchinensis in
Appendix II (Thailand, Vie Nam)

The Siamese rosewood is distributed in Cambodia, Lao, Thailand and Viet Nam.
The population has recently been depleted. Logging of the species is prohibitedin all range states but still illegal logging and trade are rampant. Thailand has
sent consultation letters to other range states. The position of Cambodia and Lao
is unclear but based on its protection status, both countries should be supportiveof this proposal. We recommend that the proposal be adopted.
Prop.

61

Inclusion of black rosewoods Dalbergia retusa and Dalbergia
granadillo in Appendix II (Belize)

Whereas Dalbergia retusa is distributed from Mexico to Panama, Dalbergia
granadillo is found in Mexico and El Salvador. The proponent is asking to list
Dalbergia retusa in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15) Annex
2 (a) and Dalbergia granadillo for a look-alike reason. Very little is known of trade
data on D. retusa. According to the proposal, the species is so rare that very littleof it reaches the world market. In addition, it is mentioned that mostinternationally traded timber now comes from plantations. It seems that a threatcaused by international trade is negligible. We do not understand what Belize
wishes to accomplish by listing the species in Appendix II. Consultation letterswere sent to the range states but it is not clear if they are supportive of the
proposal. Under the circumstances, we recommend that the proposal berejected.

17

Prop.

62

Inclusion of Honduras rosewood Dalbergia stevensonii in Appendix II(Belize)

The Honduras rosewood occurs in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala. Unlike
Dalbergia retusa, this species is not available from plantations. Little is known of
the population size and trends. However, it seems that international trade from
Mexico and Guatemala is non-existent. In addition, Belize has established amoratorium on cutting and export of Honduras rosewoods. For the same reason
as Prop.61 for Delbergia retusa and D. granadillo, we recommend that the
proposal be rejected.
Prop.

63

Inclusion of rosewoods in the genus Dalbergia in Appendix II(Madagascar)

According to the proposal, 250 species belong to the genus Dalbergia. The
present proposal is asking to list 48 species, all of which are endemic to
Madagascar. Insufficient information is available on the population size andtrends. However, it seems that a large quantity of Delbergia logs have been
shipped from Madagascar. We recommend that the proposal be adopted.
However, it should be pointed out that listing in Appendix II is not a goal. It
seems likely that illegal trade will continue even after 48 species in the genus
Dalbergia are included in Appendix II. A CITES listing is not a panacea. What
Madagascar should do is to strengthen its enforcement activities.
Prop.

64

Inclusion of andapary Senna meridionalis in Appendix II (Madagascar)

The andapary is endemic to the south-west of Madagascar with a fragmented
distribution. According to the supporting statement, no illegal trade in this species
has been recorded. Furthermore, it is mentioned that since the species is notcovered by CITES, harvesting and export are not subject to any form of
regulation. It is quite difficult to understand this statement. If Madagascar
recognizes a necessity to regulate the harvest and export of the species, then it
should introduce such regulations. This can be done without listing the species inAppendix II. Indeed, it is mentioned in the supporting statement that collecting
and exporting are regulated by the authorization procedures at national level.
Under the circumstances, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

65

Inclusion of bottle liana Adenia firingalavensis in Appendix II(Madagascar)

A proposal on the same species was submitted at CoP15 but was withdrawn.
The bottle liana is endemic to Madagascar. Contrary to what the proponent
claims, it seems unlikely that international trade is a main threat to the species
considering the number of specimens exported recently. Some of the habitats
are protected in nature reserves. But in others, the species is not protected nor

18managed. It seems that export of the species is subject to the authorization of
the Management Authority. If Madagascar is concerned about the export volume,
it should establish a specific export quota without listing in Appendix II. The
proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

66

Inclusion of katakata Adenia subsessilifolia in Appendix II(Madagascar)

A similar proposal was submitted at CoP15 in 2010 but was withdrawn. The
katakata is endemic to south-western Madagascar with a restricted distribution.
Contrary to what the proponent claims, it seems unlikely that international trade
is a main threat to the species considering the number of specimens exported
recently. Some of the habitats are protected in nature reserves. But in others, thespecies is not protected nor managed. It seems that export of the species issubject to the authorization of the Management Authority. If Madagascar isconcerned about the export volume, it should establish a specific export quota
without listing in Appendix II. The proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

67

Inclusion of anakoraky Uncarina grandidieri in Appendix II(Madagascar)

The genus Uncarina is endemic to Madagascar, comprising 9 species. This
species occurs only in the southern tip of Madagascar. Contrary to what the
proponent claims, it seems unlikely that international trade is a main threat to thespecies. No illegal trade has been recorded. It seems that export of the species
is subject to the authorization of the Management Authority. If Madagascar isconcerned about the export volume, it should establish a specific export quota
without listing in Appendix II. According to the proposal, propagation of Uncarina
species from cuttings is very successful and propagation from seed is also
possible. These activities should be encouraged. Under the circumstances, werecommend that the proposal be rejected.
Prop.

68

Inclusion of farehitsy Uncarina stellulifera in Appendix II (Madagascar)

This species is endemic to the southwestern part of Madagascar. Contrary towhat the proponent claims, it seems unlikely that international trade is a mainthreat to the species. No illegal trade has been recorded. It seems that export ofthe species is subject to the authorization of the Management Authority. If
Madagascar is concerned about the export volume, it should establish a specificexport quota without listing in Appendix II. According to the supporting statement,
propagation of Uncarina species from cuttings is very successful andpropagation from seed is also possible. These activities should be encouraged.
Under the circumstances, we recommend that the proposal be rejected.

19

Prop.

69

Inclusion of African sandalwood Osyris lanceolata in Appendix II(Kenya, Tanzania)

This species is widely distributed ranging from Africa through Europe to Asia.
Insufficient information is available on the population size and trends. The
proposal is referring to the situation of Kenya only and still superficial. As adistinguished delegate of Kenya stressed at the 62nd meeting of the Standing
Committee, any CITES decision should be made based on ‘pure science’. It is
mentioned in the proposal that various consultations were initiated within therange states. Nevertheless, the proposal refers to Tanzania, Uganda, South
Sudan and Ethiopia only. A vast majority of the range states is not covered byconsultations. As such, the proposal should be rejected.
Prop.

70

Amendment of the annotation to agarwoods Aquilaria spp. andGyrinops spp. (China, Kuwait, Indonesia)

This proposal is seeking to replace the current annotation with a new annotation.
For plant species, there have been difficulties in implementing provisions set by
the annotation. This proposal arose from the decisions adopted at CoP14 and
Cop15 as well as discussions held at two working groups established by the
Plants Committee. Adoption of this proposal will simplify CITES enforcement
activities. We recommend that the proposal be adopted.
Prop.

71

Inclusion of laza Cyphostemma laza in Appendix II (Madagascar)

This species is endemic to the southwestern part of Madagascar. Insufficient
information is available on the population size and trends. Although the numberof specimens exported in 2005 and 2007 was high, it seems unlikely thatinternational trade is a main threat to the species. No illegal trade has beenrecorded. It is mentioned in the proposal that the collection and export are
regulated by the authorization procedures at national level. Therefore, it seems
that export of the species is subject to the authorization of the Management
Authority. If Madagascar is concerned about the export volume, it should
establish an appropriate export quota. Under the circumstances, we recommendthat the proposal be rejected.

20