a review of iucn engagement in the convention on ......danna leaman, phil mcgowan, david minter,...

International Union for Conservation of Nature

A review of IUCN engagement in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

© D

an C

halle

nder

A REVIEW OF IUCN ENGAGEMENT IN THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES

OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES)1

(18 April, 2011) Contents (page)

I. Introduction (2) II. A Review of IUCN’s Past and Present Engagement in CITES (4)

A. IUCN Commissions past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 (6)

B. IUCN Secretariat past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 (23)

C. TRAFFIC past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 (37)

III. The Future Engagement of IUCN in CITES? (48)

Annexes

I. Current Engagement Procedures for IUCN Secretariat and Commission staff and Commission members, with particular reference to the Conference of Parties (51)

Appendices

I. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and IUCN-The World Conservation Union July 1999 (52)

II. IUCN Statement to the Parties: CITES 15th Conference of the Parties – 13-25 March 2010 (55) III. Report from CITES 15th Conference of the Parties Meeting (March 13 - 25, 2010) (59) IV. The End Of CITES As We Know It? A Discussion Paper by TRAFFIC International on the

outcomes of the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES and what it holds for the future of the Convention (102)

V. The Species Trade: CITES in the new millennium. World Conservation 3. (119) VI. AfESG past and present engagement with CITES (155) VII. Abbreviations and Acronyms (168)

1 This review draws on the inputs and guidance of the following individuals: Raquibul Amin, Francoise Burhenne, Dena Cator, Thomas Greiber, Sarah Lucas, Sue Mainka, Helen Pippard, Alison Rosser (ex‐) and Jane Smart (Secretariat); Sheila Abed, Ariadne Angulo, Hans de Iongh, Holly Dublin, Richard Emslie, Tandora Grant, Jon Hutton, Dietrich Jelden, Richard Jenkins, Danna Leaman, Phil McGowan, David Minter, Randy Reeves, Yvonne Sadovy, Peter Sand, Diane Skinner, Ali Stattersfield, Simon Stuart, Peter Paul van Dijk, and Grahame Webb (Commissions); and Steve Broad, Thomasina Oldfield, and Sabri Zain (TRAFFIC).

I. INTRODUCTION Following a contentious 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention in Doha, Qatar, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is perceivably at a crossroads1. The challenges facing the Convention, which has as its mandate to “ensure that international trade in (all) specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival” include, among others: 1) evolving to address and meet the needs of commercially important species, especially in relation to sustainable international use and trade; 2) addressing decision-making that is sometimes based primarily on political and economic considerations in lieu of scientific information; 3) identifying synergies with other existing environmental governance mechanisms; 4) promulgating measures that lead to conservation via economic incentives; 5) combating threats to progress in traditional heartland issues such as elephants and tigers; and 6) capacity – both in terms of human resources and finance – to effectively implement CITES measures. As CITES moves to regulate international trade of commercially important species, especially fisheries species, tensions are rising. CITES delegations do not necessarily comprise only Environment Ministries and scientists, but may be dominated by Foreign Affairs and other government representatives. Instructions from governments often relate to more than environmental concerns and focus on economic and political issues, sometimes, and probably increasingly, resulting in decisions that are not necessarily based on sound science and conservation values. More than ever, the legally binding measures of CITES relating to the trade in species are being seriously considered as an impediment to growing national economies. Countries are reticent to list commercial species on the CITES Appendices for fear of economic and political repercussions, uncertainty about the ability of CITES to manage international trade of these species, and concerns over the difficulty of downlisting or removing them from the Appendices in the future. Increasingly, many CITES Parties are suggesting that the management of commercial species (particularly marine) may be better dealt with through environmental governance mechanisms other than CITES, for example through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)2. Yet, CITES may offer unique tools that help to manage international trade of species, and has a membership (175 Parties) that is much larger than many other mechanisms. Furthermore, for some species and areas, there is no relevant or operational RFMO (or other mechanism in the case of non-marine species), and CITES is currently one of the, if not the only, means to move towards sustainable international trade. Parties are also demanding synergy and harmonization with other biodiversity-related Conventions, particularly with the Convention on Biological Diversity in light of the newly adopted Strategic Plan for 2011-20203. CITES is also being asked to seek closer integration with achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and linkages with the wider development agenda and human livelihoods. Crucially, CITES has yet to find a systematic way of encouraging and supporting measures that lead to effective implementation of the Convention via economic incentives. At CoP15, an agenda item on identifying options available for strengthening CITES as a regulatory certification scheme was rejected by Parties, which has led to assertions by some that the Parties are not interested in looking at “carrots” but only “sticks”. At the same time as new commercially important species are being considered in the CITES agenda, the same issues that existed when the Convention was first formulated in 1973 still exist – CITES is still trying to regulate international trade in tigers, elephants, and rhinos. The nature of the threats to these species is dynamic, both temporally and spatially, making the treatment of such wide-ranging species challenging, especially given nationally contrasting situations4. Another major challenge to an effective CITES is resources5. The pre-Rio Conventions are all locked into annual operating budgets of ~USD5-6 million per year, yet Parties continue to expand their requests, particularly of the Convention Secretariat (sometimes to resolve complex and outstanding issues). Meanwhile, the Rio Conventions have budgets an order of magnitude larger. Human capacity and resources to implement CITES is limited. The CITES regulation chain includes national scientists, government employees from inter alia environment/ customs/ quarantine/ forestry/ fisheries, and the private sector. Having each understand their roles and responsibilities, and providing them the necessary tools and training with which to implement the

1 Stokstad, E. 2010. Trade trumps science for marine species at international meeting. Science 328: 26‐27. 2 http://www.cites.org/eng/news/SG/2010/20101119_sg_statement_ICCAT.shtml 3 http://www.cbd.int/sp/ 4 Some of the most successful range states view controlled legal trade of their increasing populations as a positive (or possible positive) conservation measure that could also contribute to reducing illegal trade. Other range states disagree, with resentment towards CITES seemingly growing in some range states with successful conservation programmes. 5 Phelps et al. 2010. Boosting CITES. Science 330: 1752‐1753.

Convention at the national level, is a gargantuan task. As CITES comes to include commercially exploited marine species, institutional challenges have arisen because, historically, fishery departments have not dealt with CITES-listed species and the government departments with this experience, such as forestry, have little or no experience with fisheries issues. On the positive side, CITES has proven an important and effective instrument for regulating the international trade for many species, having contributed, for example, to the improvement in the conservation status of the Vicuña (Vicugna vicuna)6 and many crocodilian populations, among others. CITES now has a new Secretary General (a former head of IUCN’s Environmental Law Centre) who is already moving fast to re-focus the Convention and support the necessary changes. In tandem, with this change in leadership comes a statement of renewed commitment and support from UNEP to administer the Secretariat.

6 Hoffmann, M. et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330: 1503‐1509.

II. A REVIEW OF IUCN’S PAST AND PRESENT ENGAGEMENT IN CITES IUCN’s role in CITES stretches back to 1963 when the idea for a wildlife trade convention was first proposed at the 7th IUCN General Assembly in Nairobi. Since the Convention entered into force in 1975, IUCN has been a significant supporter and technical advisor to the Convention. Indeed, several Decisions and Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties have specifically requested IUCN’s assistance in working with the CITES Secretariat and the Parties. For example, the original CITES rhino Resolution 9.14 (subsequently revised) was drafted by the SSC African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups at the request of the CITES Secretariat, presented to the CoP by a Scientific/Programme Officer from each group, and subsequently approved with minor modifications. Recognizing the potential benefits of establishing a formal basis for co-operation and ensuring involvement of all parts of the IUCN network in assisting the CITES Secretariat in implementation of the Convention, a Memorandum of Understanding between IUCN and the CITES Secretariat (effectively nominating IUCN as a major technical advisor to the Convention) was signed in July 19991. The agreement lapsed in 2004, and has not been renewed2. Engagement in the Convention itself by the different parts of the Union (and particularly the Secretariat) has varied greatly over the years since entering into force. Through time, IUCN’s engagement has been led primarily by the Global Species Programme (GSP) in the Secretariat and the Species Survival Commission (SSC). The Head of the GSP has generally served as the head of the delegation at CITES CoP, and for many years, GSP housed a Species Trade and Use Unit (formerly the Wildlife Trade programme, which itself evolved from the Trade Specialist Group). SSC’s engagement in CITES has been executed through its diverse assemblage of expert-based Specialist Groups. The level of involvement of Specialist Groups is varied, depending on several factors including the nature of the species under the remit of the group, the expertise and capacity of the group, the Chair, the degree to which Conference Resolutions or Decisions request involvement, and many other factors. The African Elephant Specialist Group, for example, has been involved with CITES for as long as elephant issues have been on the agenda. Indeed, the elephant debate has shaped the AfESG as much as it has shaped CITES itself and has influenced the manner in which the group has operated since, with a close focus on the technical rather than the political. On the other hand, the Crocodile Specialist Group has operated in a rather unique manner within CITES, providing pro-active, science-based support to Parties to help them design, develop and manage their sustainable use programmes. SSC’s thematic Specialist Groups have also played critical roles in the Convention, particularly through the Invasive Species Specialist Group and Sustainable Use Specialist Group (the latter currently without a Chair). The SSC Chair has often been a member of the IUCN delegation to CITES, and has on two occasions served as Chair of Committee I in CITES. The majority of the technical members of the IUCN delegation to CITES are usually SSC Specialist Group members (see also Annex 1). Although IUCN involvement in CITES has been led by Species, other global programmes (and Commissions) have provided essential support. In particular, IUCN’s Environmental Law Programme/Centre was responsible for preparing a succession of drafts of the Convention text following adoption of the Resolution at the 1963 IUCN General Assembly. It was also instrumental in developing TRAFFIC, and has, over the years, continued to provide legal advice in support of the Convention3. Meanwhile, engagement by IUCN’s Regional Offices has been varied: regional offices in Africa have been involved in the CITES MIKE project (although not currently in any other CITES activities), while IUCN Oceania appears to be involved in several CITES-related activities in the Pacific Islands. Finally, global and regional communications have always played an important function in communicating awareness and policies around the Convention. TRAFFIC, as the wildlife trade programme of IUCN and WWF, fulfills a vital and complementary function in providing policy and technical support to the Convention. TRAFFIC was originally established as an SSC Specialist Group in 1976 (“Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in Commerce”), one year after the Convention came into force, to provide information and assistance to aid decision-making in CITES. In 1999, TRAFFIC and the CITES Secretariat signed a Memorandum of Understanding4, with the purpose of undertaking joint activities for capacity building. IUCN and TRAFFIC have always maintained a close working relationship, and since 1987 have jointly produced the vaunted Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices (or CITES Analyses, for short)5. 1 http://www.cites.org/common/disc/sec/CITES‐IUCN.pdf (also attached as Appendix I) 2 Although the over‐arching agreement has not been renewed, CITES and IUCN have maintained a Memorandum of Understanding specifically regarding the CITES MIKE programme (2007 – 2011) 3 A detailed review of the Environmental Law Programme’s involvement in CITES can be found in Chapter 6 (The Making of CITES) of Weaving a Web of Environmental Law (Lausche, B. J., 2008, Erich Schmidt Verlag). 4 http://www.cites.org/common/disc/sec/CITES‐TRAFFIC.pdf 5 http://www.traffic.org/cites‐cop‐papers/CoP15‐IUCN‐TRAFFIC‐full‐Analyses‐English‐web.pdf

Nonetheless, the true extent of IUCN’s engagement in CITES has never been fully assessed. The purpose of the current document is to review IUCN’s activities and processes in support of the Convention, not just at the CoP, but also inter-sessionally. The review was prompted by a request from IUCN Council to “identify better IUCN’s niche” in the Convention. The review applies to all components of IUCN, with the exception of member organizations themselves, specifically: Commissions (including the Chair’s Office and Specialist Groups); the IUCN Secretariat (including Global Programmes and Regional Offices); and TRAFFIC. Although TRAFFIC effectively operates (and presents itself at CoP and other CITES-related meetings) as a separate entity, it nonetheless remains a joint programme of IUCN and WWF (members of these organizations sit on the TRAFFIC Committee), and consequently, for the purposes of clarity, TRAFFIC’s role in CITES viz a viz IUCN (and, indirectly, the contribution that IUCN makes to delivery of the CITES Strategic Vision) is articulated here. This review is structured according to the CITES Strategic Vision for the period 2008-20136 which is intended to serve the Parties as “a tool for the prioritization of activities, and decisions on how best to fund them, in light of the need for the rational application of costs and the efficient and transparent use of resources”. The review does not explicitly map activities to the Strategic Vision Indicator set, although these are indicated under each objective as a guide. “Activities” are common across the three IUCN components, to help elucidate where a particular component of IUCN engages in the Convention in a manner in which another component may not (the latter being marked as “N/A”). The column “Present” specifically aims to distinguish any particular “Past” Activities in which a component of IUCN previously engaged, and in which it no longer does so (not for lack of opportunity, but usually due to resources) or vice versa. Examples (in italics) are intended to provide context to the Activities, by highlighting some of the ways in which IUCN has supported the Convention. Finally, “Potential?” Activities are examples of those in which IUCN could possibly engage (or re-engage), given appropriate resources. The review does not claim to be exhaustive. This review is seen as the first step in a broader consultative process (including an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) to develop an overall strategy which has, as its objective, to maximize the effectiveness of CITES as a conservation tool and, in turn, use CITES to help more fully realize IUCN’s own conservation goals.

6 Adopted as Resolution 14.2 (http://www.cites.org/eng/res/14/14‐02.shtml). A suite of indicators for the objectives contained in the Strategic Vision has been adopted (http://www.cites.org/eng/news/E‐SV‐indicators.pdf). In the wake of agreement on a suite of post‐2010 biodiversity targets, the Conference adopted Decision 15.10 directing the Standing Committee to “review the adopted post‐2010 biodiversity targets and, if necessary, make adjustments to the CITES Strategic Vision: 2008‐2013 as appropriate”.

A. IUCN Commissions past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 Goals, Objectives and Indicators

IUCN Involvement Past Present Potential?

GOAL 1 - Ensure compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention Objective 1.1 Parties comply with their obligations under the Convention through appropriate policies, legislation and procedures 1.1.1 The number of Parties that are in category 1 under the national legislation

project1.

1.1.2 The number of Parties that have designated Management Authorities and Scientific Authorities. 1.1.3 The number of Parties subject to CITES recommendations on trade.

a. Facilitating national management planning processes. Example: AfESG has facilitated national elephant management planning processes in many RS, and ensuring that legislation for CITES is in place is always a priority. b. Identifying legal gaps, loopholes or weaknesses in existing CITES-related legislation. Example: The AfESG Chair and the USA CITES Management Authority wrote to the CITES SC in 2010 regarding conflicting legislation in Thailand, which is contributing to the scale of the illegal trade in ivory in that country. c. Providing assistance to Parties (existing, new or potential) in developing national legislation that is compliant with CITES requirements. Example: The GWSG has worked with major importing and exporting governments to identify key issues in relation to reduction of IUU with Humphead Wrasse. d. Providing relevant input to the CITES Secretariat’s National Legislation Project. Example: N/A

Ongoing.

IUCN can likely play a key role in supporting Parties (as possible) with the updating of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to ensure that these cover the full range of activities contained in the Convention2 (and indeed other biodiversity-related Conventions).

Objective 1.2 Parties have in place administrative procedures that are transparent, practical, coherent and user-friendly, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. 1.2.1 The number of Parties that have adopted standard transparent procedures for the timely issuance of permits in accordance with Article VI of the Convention.

a. Conducting case-by-case determinations of the appropriateness of proposed exports as permit applications are received. Example: The AfESG has been involved in one large controversy regarding the issuance of permits for live trade in elephants, in this case from Swaziland. Data from the AfESG African Elephant Database was used in support of the permit issuance, while the AfESG’s statement regarding captive elephant populations was used against the permit issuance. As a result of this, the

Ongoing, although this appears to be very ad hoc. Providing assistance in developing or making use of simplified procedures for the issuance of permits / certificates to expedite trade that will have a negligible impact on the conservation of the species concerned. Example: The Iguana SG felt that this was an area of particular relevance for them, given their variable experiences with export offices in different countries in the Caribbean, which sometimes are unaware of updated procedures.

1 http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Enforcement/NationalLawsRegulations/Resource/tabid/780/Default.aspx In analyzing a national law, the CITES Secretariat considers whether legislation appropriately designates the responsible authorities, prohibits and penalizes trade in violation of the Convention, and provides for confiscation of specimens that were illegally traded or possessed 2 The 5th Replenishment of the GEF includes USD1.2 billion for biodiversity, and ~USD500,000 is available to each GEF‐eligible country to revise its NBSAP.

CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 Goals, Objectives and Indicators


1.2.2 The number of Parties making use of the simplified procedures3 provided for in Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP13).

AfESG was called into a legal process, which had political and funding implications.

Objective 1.3 Implementation of the Convention at the national level is consistent with decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties. 1.3.1 The number of Parties that have implemented relevant Resolutions and Decisions of the Conference of the Parties.

a. Fulfilling obligations pursuant to any Decisions and Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties that specifically request IUCN’s assistance in working with the Parties (or where the CITES Secretariat formally requests support). Example: Resolution 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) outlines the structure of MIKE and ETIS, both of which require strategic engagement by AfESG and the Parties, in turn, to report data on illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory (see Appendix VI). The RS were also directed by the CoP in Decision 14.75 to develop the African Elephant Action Plan (AEAP), and the AfESG was contracted by the CITES Secretariat to facilitate this process, which was done in 2008 and 2009 at the African Elephant Meetings held under the auspices of the CITES MIKE programme. Example: TFTSG implemented a study of the effects of CITES regulations on turtle trade pursuant to Res Conf. 14.1284. Example: AfRSG, AsRSG and TRAFFIC are jointly mandated by CITES Parties to submit a report on rhino status, trends and trade to the CITES Secretariat prior to each CoP, pursuant to Resolution 9.14 (e.g., Doc.45.1A5). This document forms the basis of much of the Secretariat’s report back on rhino to the CoP and recommendations in the joint AfRSG/AsRSG/TRAFFIC reports have been turned into CITES Decisions by Parties at CoP’s.

Ongoing (although, like the CITES Analyses, securing funding to fulfill CoP-mandated activities has been problematic).

Objective 1.4 The Appendices correctly reflect the conservation needs of species. 1.4.1 The number and proportion of species that have been found to meet the criteria contained in Resolution Conf. 9.24 or its successors. This includes both the periodic review6 and amendment proposals.

a. Providing objective support and technical assistance to Parties in drafting new proposals for amendments to CITES Appendices. Example: For CoP15, the Amphibian SG provided support to Honduras and Mexico on a proposal to include the genus Agalychnis in Appendix II7 and to the Islamic Republic of Iran on the proposal to include Neurergus kaiseri in Appendix I8.

Ongoing. Note that the IUCN/TRAFFIC analyses do not include analyses of downlisting proposals for the African Elephant, although the AfESG has in the past commented on whether the proposals meet the biological criteria13.

A key consideration is whether IUCN should make formal, impartial recommendations on listing proposals, based on sound and credible science (recognizing that it may not be possible to make recommendations on all proposals14). IUCN has previously not made formal recommendations on listing proposals (although it has on agenda items). TRAFFIC,

3 To issue permits and certificates to facilitate and expedite trade that will have a negligible impact on, or even benefit, the conservation of the species concerned, as provided for in Resolution 12.3 (http://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12‐03R15.shtml) 4 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_79‐83.shtml 5 Milliken, T., Emslie, R. H. & Talukdar, B. 2009. African and Asian rhinoceroses – status, conservation and trade. A report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) and Decision 14.89. Report to CITES 15th meeting (Doha, March 2010), CoP 15 Doc.45.1A annex: 1‐18. http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/doc/E15‐45‐01A.pdf 6 http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/51/E51‐16.pdf 7 http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E‐15‐Prop‐13.pdf



1.4.2 The number of unlisted species subject to significant levels of international trade, for which the trade and biological information is evaluated via a transparent mechanism including IUCN Red List and other data to identify species that would benefit from inclusion in the Appendices and the number of such species subsequently included in the Appendices.

Example: The GWSG and TRAFFIC worked with both the United States and Fiji, at their invitations, to provide biological, fisheries and other information for the listing proposal for inclusion of Humphead Wrasse in Appendix II. Example: TFTSG has been invited by Parties to contribute to draft Proposals, has been commissioned to draft Proposals, and has engaged with Parties to initiate preparation of Proposals. TFTSG wrote several proposals submitted at CoP129 and CoP1310, which were introduced by USA and Indonesia. Example: The AfRSG assisted Swaziland to produce a document explaining the scientific and conservation rationale behind set-percentage harvesting, which is currently recommended best practice for managing established rhino populations to achieve and maintain rapid growth to meet metapopulation demographic goals and conserve genetic diversity. The AfRSG was also asked by Swaziland to give a presentation to an EU technical delegation at a CITES CoP on this matter, and to outline why alternative EU quota proposals were in this case not in line with recommended best practices and would have hampered rather than advance conservation. Following this presentation and discussion, the EU changed its position and supported the proposed Swaziland Southern White Rhino annotated downlisting (with set-percentage harvesting). With EU backing, Swaziland’s annotated downlisting proposal was ultimately accepted by CoP. b. Providing objective, technical reviews of the proposals to amend the CITES Appendices to determine whether these meet the biological and trade criteria for the Appendices elaborated in Resolution 9.24 (Rev.

on the other hand, publishes recommendations on each decision to be taken, based mainly on the CITES Analyses15. The process for formulating such recommendations would need to be: carefully developed in order to adequately partition the Analyses from the recommendations process and to ensure appropriate constituency management; undertaken in a timely manner16; and in accordance with the formal Secretariat Procedures for Policy Work17.

8 http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E‐15‐Prop‐14.pdf 13 Resolution 10.9 outlines the process of review of proposals pertaining to elephants by a Panel of Experts, appointed by the Secretariat to review a variety of information and provide a report to the CoP. The Resolution directs the SC to consult UNEP, IUCN, and TRAFFIC before nominating the members of the Panel. Although not a requirement, there has always been at least one member of the AfESG on the Panel. The Panel of Experts report is usually only available just before the CoP and TRAFFIC and WWF wait for this report to make their recommendations on elephant down listing proposals. Prior to the Panel of Experts process, Conf Res. 7.9 outlined the process for consideration of elephant downlisting proposals. 14 As IUCN is no longer the official facilitator of the technical dialogues for the African Elephant, it does become difficult for IUCN not to have an opinion. However, the practicalities of forming an opinion that would satisfy not only the members of the AfESG, let alone IUCN’s members, seem insurmountable. The timeline would be extremely short, as it would be necessary to wait for the Panel of Experts report to come out, usually directly prior to the COP. However, even with time, it seems unlikely that IUCN would be able to reconcile the very different views to come up with an opinion on African elephant down‐listings. Any consultation would necessarily require large amounts of resources and time. 9 Specifically: 12.21 (Annamemys (now Mauremys) annamensis), 12.22 (Heosemys spp.), 12.25 (Leucocephalon yuwonoi), and 12.27 (Orlitia borneensis) 10 Specifically: 13.16 (& 13.17) (Malayemys subtrijuga), 13.18 (& 13.19) (Notochelys platynota), 13.20 (Amyda cartilaginea), 13.21 (& 13.22) (Carettochelys insculpta), and 13.23 (Chelodina mccordi). 15 http://www.traffic.org/cites‐cop‐papers/CoP15_Prop_full_Recs.pdf. An internal review by TRAFFIC comparing the recommendations made by TRAFFIC for each listing proposal and the actual outcome of these proposals, found that of the 41 listing proposals submitted, Parties agreed with TRAFFIC recommendations on 25 of them (61%) and disagreed with 16 – the lowest proportion of agreement with TRAFFIC recommendations for any CITES CoP. 16 Parties to the Convention are required to notify the CITES Secretariat of proposed amendments to the Appendices no more than 150 days before the CoP. The Analyses team endeavours to complete the review of proposals in 90 days, which would leave a maximum of a 60‐day period for IUCN’s position paper to be formally developed (and, in reality, less). 17 http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/global_policy/ (last version 7th May)



CoP14) and other Resolutions and Decisions. Example: Specialist Group members provide the overwhelming majority of expert input to the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices, but also contribute to other analyses of proposals; for example, the FAO Expert Advisory Panels that assess proposals to amend the appendices specifically for commercially exploited aquatic species11. c. Making formal, impartial recommendations on listing proposals, based on the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses, and on selected agenda items (at CoP and other fora). Example: N/A d. Providing input to the periodic review of plant and animal taxa in the CITES Appendices, to determine whether species are properly listed in the Appendices and whether a proposal to transfer a species within the Appendices or to delist it outright should be recommended to the Conference of the Parties (based on the relevant Resolution on Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II). Example: TFTSG engaged substantially in the Periodic Review of Central American River Turtle Dermatemys mawii led by Mexico (the species was selected during the 15th meeting of the AC in Madagascar for inclusion in the periodic review of the Appendices). Example: The Galliformes SG has assisted the United States (at their request) to review two species of Galliformes in the periodic review (Colinus virginianus ridgwayi and Tympanuchus cupido attwateri). e. Investigations to determine species likely to be at risk from international trade (including introduction from the sea), either through i) independent evaluations (e.g., market surveys, trade reviews, desk-top based analyses) or ii) in support of CITES Secretariat processes (e.g., workshops to evaluate the conservation priorities and management and enforcement needs related to specific species). Example: A CITES Workshop on Asian turtle trade held in Kunming, China, in 2002, was co-moderated by the TFTSG (which also prepared much of the background

11 ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/R925/r925.pdf



information), while for a forthcoming CITES Workshop on Asian snake trade (undertaken pursuant to Decision 15.7512), to be held in China in Guangzhou (April 2011), an SSC member led on preparing the background documentation for the workshop, and identified key experts both from within (and outside) the region to participate. Example: GWSG conducted a comprehensive review, prior to the eventual listing of Humphead Wrasse on Appendix II, of all available published and unpublished information following concerns for the status of the species. f. Expanding the taxonomic coverage of, and maintaining, the IUCN Red List. Example: The IUCN SSC Specialist Groups serve as the Red List Authorities for the species under their remit. In addition, several stand-alone Red List Authorities have been established where Specialist Groups do not exist. Red Listing efforts sometimes precipitate actions to develop proposals for listing of species on CITES Appendices (as happened with four species of Ctenosaura iguanas which ended up being listed on Appendix II). Furthermore, by ensuring repeat assessments over time, it may be possible to track the success of the Convention in securing an improvement in extinction risk of species threatened by international trade.

Objective 1.5 Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings. 1.5.1 The number of surveys undertaken by exporting countries of: a) the population status as well as the trends and impact of trade upon Appendix-II species; and b) the status of and trend in Appendix I species and the impact of any recovery plans. 1.5.2 The number of Parties that have adopted standard procedures for making non-detriment

a. Undertaking scientific research and population and trade monitoring to assist in the making of Non-Detriment Findings, specifically to help ensure the availability of suitable biological and population information. Example: The GWSG provided assistance in the development of the NDF for Humphead Wrasse in Indonesia that involved both field work to obtain the necessary data as well as developing the model (together with FAO and an independent fishery modeling expert) to use the data. Follow-up monitoring will be initiated this year by GWSG to assess management effectiveness, in collaboration with

Ongoing. Although the involvement of Specialist Group expertise in the NDF process is considered by many to be valuable, it has aroused controversy at times, especially where objective scientific data compilation crosses paths with commercial objectives (e.g., Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops aduncus in the Solomon Islands where, on several occasions, the Cetacean SG advised against proposed exports of live-captured dolphins, stating that it knew of no published population assessments or other research upon which a valid NDF could be based20).

A recent study analysed the 60 case studies produced for the International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings21, workshop conclusions, and other published literature, and identified 10 potential research directions for the scientific community which, if addressed, could greatly assist in the making of NDFs22.

12 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_75‐78.shtml 20 Parsons, E.C.M. et al. 2010. The trade in live Indo‐Pacific bottle nose dolphins from Solomon Islands—A CITES decision implementation case study. Marine Policy 34: 384‐388. See also: Reeves, R.R. and Brownell, R.L., Jr. (Editors). 2009. Indo‐Pacific bottlenose dolphin assessment workshop report: Solomon Islands case study of Tursiops aduncus. Occasional Paper of the Species Survival Commission, No. 40, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 53 pp. Available at: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw‐wpd/edocs/SSC‐OP‐040.pdf 21 http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/taller_ndf.html 22 Smith et al. in press. Assessing the impacts of international trade on CITES‐listed species: Current practices and opportunities for scientific research. Biological Conservation



findings. 1.5.3 The number and proportion of annual export quotas based on population surveys. 1.5.4 The number of Appendix-II species for which trade is determined to be non-detrimental to the survival of the species as a result of implementing recommendations from the Review of Significant Trade.

Indonesian government. The same field monitoring approach used to assess population for NDF will be used and the same areas resurveyed to assess NDF effectiveness. Example: CITES MIKE provides technical and financial support for population surveys in selected protected areas throughout elephant range. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia commissioned detailed surveys for Southeast Asian Box Turtle Cuora amboinensis, implemented by a TFTSG member, to provide baseline data for Indonesia and Malaysia to base their NDF’s on. Example: The Cetacean SG has undertaken work to determine sustainable removal levels for Beluga Delphinapterus leucas for live-capture and export operations in the Amur-Sakhalin region of Russia18. b. Assisting Parties in the development of Non-Detriment Findings (or in formulating appropriate procedures for making Non-Detriment Findings). Example: The GWSG together with TRAFFIC Southeast Asia worked with the SA and MA of Indonesia to develop an NDF to enable them to export CITES-listed Appendix II fish species (specifically, Humphead Wrasse Cheilinus undulatus). Example: TFTSG is consulted on occasion by the SA or MA of some countries to provide background information on the status, captive-breeding potential, or breeding operations, for particular turtle species. Example: The MPSG, WWF Germany, TRAFFIC International, and BfN developed the International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP)19. The criteria and indicators provided in ISSC-MAP to measure the fulfillment of its Principles 1 (“Maintaining wild MAP resources”) and 2 (“Preventing negative environmental impacts”) are of direct relevance for the making of NDFs. Example: The Chameleon SG has supported the Madagascar SA in the formulation of NDFs to serve the basis for the establishment of revised export quotas.

18 Reeves, R.R., Brownell, R.L. Jr., Burkanov, V., Kingsley, M.C.S., Lowry, L.F. & Taylor, B.L. in press. Sustainability Assessment of Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Live‐capture Removals in the Sakhalin–Amur Region, Okhotsk Sea, Russia: Report of an Independent Scientific Review Panel. IUCN Occassional Paper series. 19 Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (ed.) (2007): International standard for sustainable wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants (ISSC‐MAP). Version 1.0. ‐ 36 pp., Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn (BfN‐Skripten 195).



c. Providing assistance or advice to Parties on the establishment of sound export quotas. Example: The Chameleon SG has advised on the establishment of export quotas of Malagasy chameleons. Example: AfRSG advised Swaziland on the use of set percentage harvesting quotas with a safe upper level in its annotated Southern White Rhino downlisting proposal (see 1.4a). d. Managing or curating population-level information on CITES-listed species to inform management decisions. Example: The African and Asian Elephant Database (formerly the African Elephant Database) is the official repository of population data obtained through the CITES MIKE programme in Africa. The AAED underpins the analyses that MIKE undertakes on ‘dead elephants’ with information on ‘live elephants’, which links into the information which ETIS has on the ivory trade. Example: The AfRSG keeps a confidential database on rhino populations and numbers which it updates every 2-3 years and which it uses to both update continental rhino numbers and report back to CoP’s as part of its mandated reporting (together with AsRSG and TRAFFIC). e. Participating in the Review of Significant Trade process to identify inappropriate NDFs as the basis of unsustainable levels of trade (both prior to, and at, AP & AC meetings). Example: The Chameleon SG recently provided support to the Review of Significant Trade process (specifically for Brookesia decaryi), both to UNEP-WCMC (the consultant leading the process) and Madagascar’s SA.

Objective 1.6 Parties cooperate in managing shared wildlife resources. 1.6.1 The number of bilateral and multilateral cooperative agreements that specifically provide for co-management of shared species by range states 1.6.2 The number of cooperative management plans including recovery plans in place for

a. Facilitating, organizing and convening dialogue meetings/workshops to examine proposals to amend the CITES Appendices. Example: Following an extremely controversial and acrimonious elephant debate at the 1994 CoP, a number of RS approached the AfESG to ask if IUCN would facilitate a dialogue process. The original intention was to hold “Range State Dialogues” intersessionally, so as to have them separate from the CoP. However, due in part to budget considerations,

Ongoing, but largely in support of Activity b. For example, the Crocodile SG is leading a meeting, hosted by the Thailand Department of Fisheries and the Mahidol University, Bangkok, to review the conservation, management, farming, regulation, enforcement and trade in Siamese Crocodile Crocodylus siamensis at national and international levels, and to try and formulate priorities for enhancing conservation and ensuring that trade is legal, sustainable and verifiable. Similarly, now that formal elephant



shared populations of CITES listed species 1.6.3 The number of workshops and other capacity-building activities that bring range states together to address the conservation and management needs of shared species.

every second RSD was held directly prior to the CoP. While the AfESG took a lead role in the initial RSDs, they were truly a joint effort of IUCN, with the Species Programme and the Regional Offices closely involved. IUCN’s regional representatives chaired working groups at the RSDs. The RSD statement was an important output of each meeting, and at the meetings adjacent to CoPs, the rest of the Parties would respect the compromise reached by the RS, as outlined in the meeting statement. However, since CoP14, Resolution 14.5 describes a very specific type of meeting that can only be called for in relation to a listing proposal and must be called for by the CoP or the SC. b. Facilitating dialogues between RS around shared management of CITES-listed species. Example: The AfESG has helped RS prepare regional management plans in West, Central and southern Africa, and in West Africa, in particular, facilitated the development of a transboundary corridor action plan, as well as the development of an inter-governmental MOU on shared elephant populations (signed under CMS in 2005). Example: Since 2004, several national and international workshops, attended by major importing and exporting countries of Humphead Wrasse, have been organized by the GWSG in collaboration with different governments and have variously addressed information collection, discussions with traders, IUU and NDF development. Participants included traders, non-governmental organizations, representatives of the governments of Hong Kong, People's Republic of China (major importer along with Hong Kong), Indonesia (major exporter), Philippines and Malaysia (Singapore was invited but declined to attend). These discussions have been especially important for commercial marine fish for which there is currently relatively little experience in the range state management authorities in relation to CITES listings.

RSDs can only be called by the CoP or SC, the only occasions when RS come together outside of the listing debates is the African Elephant Range State meetings, convened under the CITES MIKE programme. The AfESG provides technical support to these meetings, contributes to the agenda, facilitates working sessions, and in some cases, chairs the plenary, and sometimes helps prepare meeting reports. Although these meetings no longer deal with listing-related issues, they have helped move forward a number of non-listing-related CITES Resolutions and Decisions (such as 14.75, 14.77, 14.79, and 15.74).

Objective 1.7 Parties are enforcing the Convention to reduce illegal wildlife trade. 1.7.1 The number of Parties that have, or are covered by: – regional enforcement action plans; – regional enforcement networks; – national enforcement action plans; and–

a. Identifying unsustainable or illegal trade, or non-compliance of Parties with CITES legislation, and informing the relevant CITES Authorities (specifically, the Management Authority) of both importing and exporting countries, and/or the CITES Secretariat through investigations, market surveys and trade reports.

Ongoing. However, like the CITES Analyses, securing funding to undertake CoP-mandated activities (such as the reviews produced by AfRSG, AsRSG and TFTSG) has been problematic.



national inter-agency enforcement coordination networks. 1.7.2 The number of Parties with designated national CITES enforcement focal points. 1.7.3 The number of Parties that have criminal law and procedures in place for investigating and penalizing CITES offences. 1.7.4 The number of Parties making use of risk assessment in order to better target their CITES enforcement effort.

Example: Several Specialist Groups raise law enforcement issues to the CITES Secretariat and national CITES authorities. Specialist Groups are often better placed to find out about problems of illegal trade, through their expert network operating on the ground. The Crocodile SG has on several occasions informed the CITES Secretariat of non-compliance in certain countries (Document SC 50 Doc 28 on Paraguay23, and SC 54 Doc. 32 concerning Madagascar24). The GWSG conducted a study on IUU in Humphead Wrasse RS, and notified the major trading range states (specifically, the MA in Indonesia and Malaysia) about the study outcomes. b. Leading on, or providing input to, reviews of the conservation status of CITES-listed species, and Parties’ progress in implementing measures to effect regulation of trade in these, identifying shortcomings and obstacles to effective control of trade, and recommending priority actions to address these. Example: AfRSG and AsRSG, together with TRAFFIC, have prepared a report for every CITES CoP pursuant to Resolution 9.14 (e.g., Doc.45.1A25). Example: The Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group prepared Doc.4926 pursuant to Decision 14.128 for CoP15. Example: The AfESG is mandated under Decision 14.78 to provide an update on the conservation status of African Elephants to every Standing Committee meeting. Example: The Crocodile SG has carried out several in-country reviews (e.g., Viet Nam27) of crocodile conservation, management and sustainable use. c. Managing, or providing data, expertise and technical input to, monitoring projects and other information systems designed to record, measure and analyse levels and trends in illegal harvesting and trade and to determine changes in these trends over time (and the possible factors causing these, including the impact of

23 http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/50/index.shtml 24 http://www.cites.org/eng/com/SC/54/index.shtml 25 Milliken, T., Emslie, R. H. & Talukdar, B. 2009. African and Asian rhinoceroses – status, conservation and trade. A report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) and Decision 14.89. Report to CITES 15th meeting (Doha, March 2010), CoP 15 Doc.45.1A annex: 1‐18. http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/doc/E15‐45‐01A.pdf 26 IUCN SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. 2010. Implementation of Decision 14.128. A study of progress on conservation of and trade in CITES‐listed tortoises and freshwater turtles in Asia. CoP 15 Doc.49. http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15‐49.pdf 27 http://www.iucncsg.org/ph1/modules/Publications/download/CSG_Review_Vietnam_2008.pdf



CITES-listings on trade) so that enforcement efforts are intelligence-led. Example: The AfESG has been closely involved in the conception, design and evolution of the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS)28 and CITES Monitoring of the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)29, one of the largest programmes within CITES with an annual operating budget of ~€2.3 million. A number of AfESG members, including the Chair, serve on the Technical Advisory Groups for both ETIS and MIKE. TAG members are involved in advising on both analytical and operational matters for ETIS and MIKE, and they review all analyses that are generated from the programmes. d. Facilitating, and/or providing support and technical expertise to, the development and implementation of regional, or species-specific, action plans or networks. Example: The AfESG facilitated the development of the African Elephant Action Plan (AEAP) in 2008 and 2009 at the African Elephant Meetings. Example: AfRSG and its members have routinely assisted range states (Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe), with the revision and updating of their national rhino plans and strategies. AfRSG members are also active in regional rhino conservation groups such as the SADC Rhino Management Group and East African Rhino Management Group and AfRSG members assisted with drafting of a SADC Rhino Conservation Statregy and an associated manual which advised on implementation of rhino conservation strategies. e. Assist national authorities with the identification of unknown or unusual animals encountered during inspections of trade shipments or after confiscation. Example: The TFTSG assists in this manner several times a year, usually based on digital photos sent as email attachments, and provides additional information on the species identified.

Objective 1.8 Parties and the Secretariat have adequate capacity-building programmes in place.

a. Preparing technical guidelines and tools to assist Parties in implementing the Convention. Example: Many experts from SSC Specialist Groups

Ongoing.

28 http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/etis/index.shtml 29 http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/mike/index.shtml



1.8.1 The number of Parties with national and regional training programmes and information resources in place to implement CITES including the making of non-detriment findings, issuance of permits and enforcement. 1.8.2 The number of training and capacity-building programmes conducted or assisted by the Secretariat. 1.8.3 The proportion of Parties having received capacity building support from the Secretariat on request.

contributed to the International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings30 to produce taxon-specific guidance on preparing NDFs. Example: The MPSG, WWF Germany, TRAFFIC International, and BfN published the International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP) in 200731. Example: The GWSG (in collaboration with FAO and an independent expert in fisheries modeling) developed an NDF model that has been used in Indonesia and Malaysia for making NDFs for Humphead Wrasse. b. Developing tools and guides to aid identification of species and their products in trade. Example: In 2006, the CITES Secretariat engaged the assistance of the Sturgeon SG to help develop a uniform identification system for parts and derivatives of Acipenseriformes32. Example: The Crocodile SG produced a paper33 intended to help properly implement CITES Notification 2010/037 concerning trade in skins of Caiman Caiman crocodilus from Colombia. Example: A variety of turtle identification material has been prepared by TFTSG members with use by CITES authorities and other wildlife authorities as the prime guiding design consideration34. Example: The Chameleon SG is currently preparing a colour brochure for Furcifer chameleons (Madagascar and Comoros), funded by the Darwin Initiative and Conservation International. Example: AfRSG members developed a carbon isotope ratio test which has been used to identify the species of a pre-convention rhino horn artifact as well as having been used in court cases. c. Conducting training workshops (or assisting the CITES Secretariat in conducting these), to aid implementation of the Convention, such as training workshops for enforcement officers (including species identification, forensics, investigation techniques, surveillance) or on the use of tools or methods to, for

30 http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/taller_ndf.html 31 Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (ed.) (2007): International standard for sustainable wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants (ISSC‐MAP). Version 1.0. ‐ 36 pp., Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn (BfN‐Skripten 195). 32 http://www.cites.org/common/prog/sturgeon/id_sturgeon_iucn.pdf 33 Webb, G. et al. 2010. Predicting the total length of Caiman crocodilus from skin measurements, and quantifying changes in skin size during preservation and tanning. 34 For example, the Asian Turtle Conservation Network identification sheets for turtles: http://www.asianturtlenetwork.org/field_guide/field_guide_intro.htm



example, undertake NDFs. Example: The GWSG, together with TRAFFIC, has conducted several in-country workshops to explain the use and implementation of the NDF model that it developed. It has also, at the invitation of TRAFFIC, run training workshops on Humphead Wrasse identification in southern China for customs officials (and will run a similar workshop soon in Indonesia). Example: CITES MIKE, supported by AfESG, provides capacity-building support for law enforcement monitoring. Example: the Chameleon SG supported an NDF training workshop in Madagascar (through funding from the Darwin Initiative) targeted towards SA officials, but including also key species experts, and representatives from NGOs and the MA.

GOAL 2 - Secure the necessary financial resources and means for the operation and implementation of the Convention Objective 2.1 Financial resources are sufficient to ensure operation of the Convention. 2.1.1 The number of Parties meeting their obligations with regard to their assessed contributions to the Trust Fund. 2.1.2 The percentage of the work programme agreed by the Conference of the Parties that is fully funded.

Objective 2.2 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to ensure compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention. 2.2.1 The number of Parties with dedicated staff and funding for Management Authorities, Scientific Authorities and wildlife trade enforcement agencies. 2.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken one or more of the following activities in the past two years: – increased the budget for activities; – hiring more staff; – development of implementation tools; – improvement of national networks; - purchase of technical equipment for monitoring and

a. Mobilizing resources to help Parties implement and enforce the Convention. Example: In the past, the AfESG supported the Elephant and Rhino Fund (established at UNEP to assist with conservation challenges, but overall under the auspices of CITES) although this process eventually collapsed, because the resources just did not match the needs and the process became very political. Decision 14.79 calls for the establishment of an African Elephant Fund. The AfESG has been working to assist the Secretariat on the details of the Fund, and at the last African elephant range States meeting, the AfESG Chair played an important role in facilitating decisions on the Steering Committee membership for the Fund. The CITES Mike programme also helps Parties purchase equipment.

Ongoing. Providing advice or guidance on suitable organizations (e.g., IUCN members or academic institutions) to support Management Authorities or Scientific Authorities.



enforcement; and – computerization. Objective 2.3 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to implement capacity-building programmes. 2.3.1 The number of capacity building activities mandated by Resolutions and Decisions that are fully funded.

a. Mobilizing resources to help Parties implement capacity-building efforts. Example: The AfESG assisted in raising funds for MIKE I and played a significant role in assisting the CITES Secretariat to secure funding from the European Commission to support MIKE II. The current phase of MIKE ends at the end of 2011. The CITES Secretariat is approaching the EC for further funding to continue the programme until at least CoP16 (2013). IUCN is involved in the development of this project proposal, as a key implementing and technical partner. The Chair of the AfESG is leading these negotiations (together with the Global Species Programme). Example: The GWSG secured funds from NOAA (and other funding sources, including the University of Hong Kong) to help Indonesia and the Philippines implement capacity building exercises in both Indonesia and the Philippines.

Ongoing.

GOAL 3 - Contribute to significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by ensuring that CITES and other multilateral instruments and processes are coherent and mutually supportive

Objective 3.1 Cooperation between CITES and international financial mechanisms and other related institutions is enhanced in order to support CITES-related conservation and sustainable development projects, without diminishing funding for currently prioritized activities. 3.1.1 The number of Parties funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions to develop activities that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. 3.1.2 The number of international projects funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. 3.1.3 The number of countries and institutions that have provided additional funding for conservation and sustainable development projects in order to further the objectives of the Convention.

a. Working with Parties to secure globally flexible funding (e.g., from the Global Environment Facility) to develop activities or projects that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. Example: N/A

Unchanged.



Objective 3.2 Awareness of the role and purpose of CITES is increased globally. 3.2.1 The number of Parties that have been involved in CITES awareness raising campaigns to bring about better accessibility to and understanding by the wider public of the Convention requirements. 3.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken market surveys indicating the public’s understanding of the role and purpose of CITES. 3.2.3 The number of visits on the Secretariat’s website. 3.2.4 The number of Parties with web pages on CITES and its requirements.

a. Raising the profile of international wildlife trade generally (and associated issues and risks), through suitable communications tools and fora (including websites, posters and pamphlets, newsletters and journals, press releases and media advisories). Example: This is one of the most active roles that Commissions play, with many communicating CITES issues via their websites, e-bulletins or periodicals. Many Specialist Groups within the SSC have websites that specifically provide an overview to CITES issues for the species under the remit of the group and some maintain campaign websites (e.g., the GWSG maintains a website for the Humphead Wrasse Awareness Campaign35). Example: The AfESG publishes regular updates on MIKE and ETIS in its journal (Pachyderm) every six months. b. Conducting awareness raising and demand reduction campaigns on target species and commodities Example: The AfESG is facilitating an initiative focused on raising awareness of travelers between Africa and East Asia, not only on the consequences for African elephants of the illegal trade, but also to educate them on CITES and the legal consequences of engaging in the illegal trade. c. Undertaking consumer surveys and studies on attitudes to wildlife consumption Example: None to hand, but presumably an activity in which SGs are active.

Ongoing.

Objective 3.3 Cooperation with relevant international environmental, trade and development organizations is enhanced. 3.3.1 The number of biodiversity conservation goals, objectives and principles of CITES and those of relevant multilateral environmental, trade and development agreements and conventions that are identified and implemented in an integrated manner. 3.3.2 The number of additional biodiversity conservation, trade and development goals,

a. Facilitating, promoting and enhancing collaborations and dialogue with inter-governmental organizations for activities to support Parties in implementing the Convention. Examples include regional organizations (e.g., COMIFAC, SADC, EU), enforcement (Interpol, UNODC), trade and customs organizations (e.g., ITTO, WCO), UN agencies (e.g., FAO), and others (e.g., RFMO’s). Example: Several Crocodile SG members have in the past been involved either as FAO consultants or employed as experts in FAO/UNDP crocodile management and conservation projects (e.g. in Madagascar, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Ethiopia

Ongoing.

35 www.humpheadwrasse.info (maintained by the Grouper and Wrasse Specialist Group)



scientific and technical programmes that integrate CITES requirements agreed between environmental and trade agreements and programmes and international financial mechanisms. 3.3.3 The number of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations participating in and/or funding CITES workshops and other training and capacity-building activities.

and India) that contributed to better conservation and management of these species. Example: The GWSG engaged FAO in the NDF procedures for Humphead Wrasse. Example: The AfESG has worked extensively with the various African regional development communities (EAC, SADC, CEEAC, and ECOWAS) on elephant issues, including CITES.

Objective 3.4 The contribution of CITES to the relevant Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development goals set at WSSD is strengthened by ensuring that international trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted at sustainable levels. The following indicators apply to this objective: 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5.4, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 2.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. 3.4.1 Improving conservation status of CITES-listed species as shown by tools such as the IUCN Red List Index.

a. Providing assistance on studies and the development of tools to assess the impacts (positive and negative) of CITES listing decisions on human livelihoods, and the compilation of guidelines for Parties to address these impacts. Example: N/A b. Demonstrating the value and importance of sustainable international trade in species. Example: The Crocodile SG has an established Industry Thematic Group to support the management of renewable crocodilian populations and ensure the trade is legal, sustainable and verifiable. Trade workshops are conducted during regular CSG meetings, and intercessional meetings with industry leaders provide ongoing forums to discuss, update and set priorities. Example: From 2004 to 2007, the MPSG, WWF Germany, TRAFFIC International, and BfN developed a framework of concrete practice standards and performance criteria for the sustainable wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants. This initiative responded to the needs of industry, governments, certifiers, resource managers, and collectors to understand whether wild collection activities for MAP are sustainable, and how to improve collection and resource management operations that are detrimental to the long-term survival of these resources. After several rounds of intense stakeholder consultation and tests in model field projects, the International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP) was published in 200736.

Ongoing.

Objective 3.5 Parties and the Secretariat cooperate with other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with

a. Fostering collaboration between CITES and other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements. Example: The AfESG played a central role in the West

Ongoing Helping Parties and the CITES Secretariat foster closer synergy with biodiversity-related initiatives and conventions, including:

36 Medicinal Plant Specialist Group (ed.) (2007): International standard for sustainable wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants (ISSC‐MAP). Version 1.0. ‐ 36 pp., Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn (BfN‐Skripten 195).



natural resources, as appropriate, in order to achieve a coherent and collaborative approach to species which can be endangered by unsustainable trade, including those which are commercially exploited. 3.5.1 The number of cooperative actions taken to prevent species becoming threatened by unsustainable trade. 3.5.2 The number of times other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources are consulted on issues relevant to species subject to unsustainable trade.

African MOU to conserve shared populations of the African elephant under CMS. They have also played a role in helping to interface between CMS and CITES in the west African sub-region, participating in a workshop of CMS and CITES MIKE focal points in 2009 to identify shared priorities and potential for shared projects. This is in support of Resolution Conf 13.3, although African elephants are not identified in that Resolution as a priority for CMS – CITES cooperation. In June 2011, the AfESG is participating in a joint workshop which will bring together the CBD Bushmeat Liaison Working Group and the CITES Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group.

i) aiding the Standing Committee review the adopted post-2010 CBD biodiversity targets and, if necessary, make adjustments to the CITES Strategic Vision37; ii) providing links to the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators for the Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-202038 and to the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP)39 and ensuring indicators relevant to tracking trends in the status of species subject to international trade are appropriately developed and included; iii) fostering collaboration between CITES and the recently established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); iv) seeking linkages with other biodiversity-related conventions.

Other activities a. Providing information and guidance on taxonomic developments pertaining to CITES-listed species, review of draft CITES checklists, and drafting recommendations for adopting nomenclatural changes for species (plus wider nomenclatural streamlining processes). Example: the TFTSG produces an annual checklist40 that specifically aims to highlight changes and additions that may need to be made to the CITES Standard Reference(s) for turtles (Fritz & Havaš 200741) b. Technical or other input on amendments to resolutions or on terminology/definitions or interpretation of the Convention text. Example: The AfESG is closely involved in advising on the revision of Resolution 10.10 which governs MIKE and ETIS (see Decision 15.74). This Resolution does not formally include IUCN, but its predecessor which mandated the work leading up to the establishment of MIKE and ETIS did include IUCN formally. The AfESG has been involved in gathering feedback from the RS on this possible revision and it is clear that the RS wish to

Ongoing.

37 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_10.shtml 38 Per Paragraph 5 of CBD CoP 10 DECISION X/7 on the Examination of the outcome‐oriented goals and targets and associated indicators and consideration of their possible adjustment for the period beyond 2010. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12273 39 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_11.shtml 40 http://www.iucn‐tftsg.org/checklist/ 41 http://www.iucn‐tftsg.org/wp‐content/uploads/file/Articles/Fritz_and_Havas_2007.pdf



see both IUCN and TRAFFIC enshrined in the revised resolution. c. Providing technical input and expertise on amendments to the criteria for inclusion of Species in the Appendices. Example: David Brackett, SSC Chair 2000-2004, led this process in the early 2000s. d. Assisting Parties with the preparation of draft recommendations. Example: The GWSG worked with Indonesia to draft CoP15 Doc.5142 and the AfRSG drafted what was eventually adopted as Resolution 9.1443. e. Developing, or supporting the development of, internationally accepted indicators to help Parties track and monitor the impacts of measures implemented nationally to reduce illegal wildlife trade, and the impact of CITES as a conservation tool generally. Example: The work of SSC Specialist Groups, particularly in terms of keeping the Red List assessments for species under their remits up-to-date, is integral to the Red List Index.

42 Indonesia consulted with the Grouper and Wrasse Specialist Group to have them assist in preparing a document for submission (http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15‐51.pdf ; ultimately this was recorded as Decision 15.86‐15.88: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_86‐88.shtml) to CoP15 to highlight the problem and propose possible actions. The Management Authority drafted the document and invited the Grouper and Wrasse Specialist Group to comment and advise on technical matters. 43 http://www.cites.org/eng/res/09/09‐14R15.shtml

B. IUCN Secretariat past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 Goals, Objectives and Indicators



project1.


a. Facilitating national management planning processes. Example: N/A b. Identifying legal gaps, loopholes or weaknesses in existing CITES-related legislation. Example: A survey of 81 CITES Parties, conducted by ELC in 1993-1994, indicated that only 12 of those surveyed had completed the full range of legislative and administrative measures needed to give effect to all aspects of the Convention. Example: ELC is currently collaborating in a joint TRAFFIC-IUCN project looking at the EC Wildlife Trade regulations. As part of the assessment of the effectiveness of the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations, the ELC is undertaking an in-depth analysis of the provisions, noting whether there are any issues or inconsistencies. In particular the analysis is reviewing possible inconsistencies within and between the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations as well as with the provisions and Resolutions of CITES and European Union Policies and Law, such as the Habitats Directive or the Birds Directive and the EC policy on Invasive species. c. Providing assistance to Parties (existing, new or potential) in developing national legislation that is compliant with CITES requirements. Example: In the past, ELC has provided such support to Parties in one of four ways: a) provided information about the legislation of others in the field considered; b) assisted a particular Party, upon request, in assessing the country relevant legislation and provided recommendations on possible improvements; c) provided general tools, such as the Guidelines for Legislation to Implement CITES2 (see 1.8b); and d) provided capacity building via training workshops on

Ongoing. However, there now appears to be limited engagement by ELC in terms of assisting Parties with the development of effective national legislation.

IUCN can likely play a key role in supporting Parties (as possible) with the updating of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to ensure that these cover the full range of activities contained in the Convention4 (and indeed other biodiversity-related Conventions). Revising the Guidelines for Legislation to Implement CITES5 (now nearly 20 years old).

1 http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Enforcement/NationalLawsRegulations/Resource/tabid/780/Default.aspx 2 De Klemm, C. 1993. Guidelines for legislation to implement CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. Available at: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002‐610/002‐610.html 4 The 5th Replenishment of the GEF includes USD1.2 billion for biodiversity, and ~USD500,000 is available to each GEF‐eligible country to revise its NBSAP. 5 De Klemm, C. 1993. Guidelines for legislation to implement CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. Available at: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002‐610/002‐610.html



the needs for, and elements of, adequate legislation in a particular field (see 1.8c). d. Providing relevant input to the CITES Secretariat’s National Legislation Project. Example: ELC was involved in the creation of the CITES National Legislation Project3, and in the establishment of an evaluation/ranking process of national legislation.

Objective 1.2 Parties have in place administrative procedures that are transparent, practical, coherent and user-friendly, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. 1.2.1 The number of Parties that have adopted standard transparent procedures for the timely issuance of permits in accordance with Article VI of the Convention. 1.2.2 The number of Parties making use of the simplified procedures6 provided for in Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP13).

a. Conducting case-by-case determinations of the appropriateness of proposed exports as permit applications are received. Example: N/A

Unchanged.

Objective 1.3 Implementation of the Convention at the national level is consistent with decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties. 1.3.1 The number of Parties that have implemented relevant Resolutions and Decisions of the Conference of the Parties.

a. Fulfilling obligations pursuant to any Decisions and Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties that specifically request IUCN’s assistance in working with the Parties. Example: The IUCN regional programmes in Africa (ESARO and PACO) host the CITES MIKE Sub-Regional Support Units (SSUs) in Pretoria, Nairobi, Yaoundé, and Ouagadougou.

Ongoing

Objective 1.4 The Appendices correctly reflect the conservation needs of species. 1.4.1 The number and proportion of species that have been found to meet the criteria contained in Resolution Conf. 9.24 or its successors. This includes both the periodic review7 and amendment proposals.

a. Providing objective support and technical assistance to Parties in drafting new proposals for amendments to CITES Appendices. Example: As noted below (1.8a) the now defunct Wildlife Trade Programme used to produce a regularly updated document (“CITES: A conservation Tool”), which included guidelines for Parties wishing to make amendments to the Appendices8.

Ongoing. The potential for IUCN to engage in making formal, impartial recommendations, based on sound and credible science, requires careful consideration. IUCN has previously not made formal recommendations on listing proposals (although it has on agenda items). TRAFFIC, on the other hand, publishes recommendations on each decision to be taken, based mainly on

3 http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Enforcement/NationalLawsRegulations/Resource/tabid/780/Default.aspx In analyzing a national law, the CITES Secretariat considers whether legislation appropriately designates the responsible authorities, prohibits and penalizes trade in violation of the Convention, and provides for confiscation of specimens that were illegally traded or possessed 6 To issue permits and certificates to facilitate and expedite trade that will have a negligible impact on, or even benefit, the conservation of the species concerned, as provided for in Resolution 12.3 (http://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12‐03R15.shtml) 7 http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/51/E51‐16.pdf 8 Rosser, A.R. et al. 2004. CITES: A conservation tool. A guide to amending the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Prepared for the Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, October 2004, Thailand. IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://data.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/wildlife_trade/citescop13/CITES/CITESToolEng04.pdf




b. Providing objective, technical reviews of the proposals to amend the CITES Appendices to determine whether these meet the biological and trade criteria for the Appendices elaborated in Resolution 9.24 (Rev. CoP14) and other Resolutions and Decisions. Example: IUCN Secretariat and TRAFFIC jointly coordinate the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices (and, with some support of the CITES Secretariat, also secure the necessary funding), and solicit input and information from Commission members (invariably SSC) for the Analyses9. Following the deadline for Parties’ submission of amendment proposals, the review team (comprising staff of TRAFFIC, IUCN Secretariat, independent consultants, and sometimes SG members) compiles the available information to prepare a first draft of the Analyses. These drafts, together with a series of additional questions and clarifications, are then sent to a variety of reviewers for comment following which reviewers’ responses are compiled into the final document. Staff members of both IUCN and TRAFFIC may assist in the review of proposals. c. Making formal, impartial recommendations on listing proposals, based on the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses, and on selected agenda items (at CoP and other fora). Example: N/A d. Providing input to the periodic review of plant and animal taxa in the CITES Appendices, to determine whether species are properly listed in the Appendices and whether a proposal to transfer a species within the Appendices or to delist it outright should be recommended to the CoP (based on the relevant Resolution on Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II). Example: N/A

the CITES Analyses11 and also provides recommendations on selected agenda items12. The process for formulating such recommendations would need to be: carefully developed in order to adequately partition the Analyses from the recommendations process and to ensure appropriate constituency management; undertaken in a timely manner13; and in accordance with the formal IUCN Secretariat Procedures for Policy Work14.

9 The Trade Specialist Group, which later evolved into the Wildlife Trade Programme, started this review process in 1987 for COP6. An independent review of the Analyses after COP11 concluded that they were highly valued by the Parties, and have been conducted jointly by IUCN and TRAFFIC ever since. 11 http://www.traffic.org/cites‐cop‐papers/CoP15_Prop_full_Recs.pdf. An internal review by TRAFFIC comparing the recommendations made by TRAFFIC for each listing proposal and the actual outcome of these proposals, found that of the 41 listing proposals submitted, Parties agreed with TRAFFIC recommendations on 25 of them (61%) and disagreed with 16 – the lowest proportion of agreement with TRAFFIC recommendations for any CITES CoP. 12 http://www.traffic.org/cites‐cop‐papers/TRAFFIC%20Recommendations%20on%20agenda%20documents.pdf 13 Parties to the Convention are required to notify the CITES Secretariat of proposed amendments to the Appendices no more than 150 days before the CoP. The Analyses team endeavours to complete the review of proposals in 90 days, which would leave a maximum of a 60‐day period for IUCN’s position paper to be formally developed (and, in reality, less). 14 http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/global_policy/ (last version 7th May)



e. Investigations to determine species likely to be at risk from international trade (including introduction from the sea), either through i) independent evaluations (e.g., market surveys, trade reviews, desk-top based analyses) or ii) in support of CITES Secretariat processes (e.g., workshops to evaluate the conservation priorities and management and enforcement needs related to specific species). Example: An analysis of the IUCN Red List undertaken by the IUCN Species Programme found 47 amphibian species that are listed as threatened and adversely impacted by exploitation for the international trade; currently, only 20 of these species are listed on Appendix I or II of CITES, leaving several species as priorities for inclusion on a CITES Appendix. Furthermore, some CITES-listed species (e.g., some of the African toad genera such as Nectophrynoides) have never been the subject of international trade, and one genus (Rheobatrachus) is Extinct, although not because of international trade10 f. Expanding the taxonomic coverage of, and maintaining, the IUCN Red List. Example: The IUCN Global Species Programme provides robust support to the work of the IUCN SSC Specialist Groups in assessing species for inclusion of the Red List (indeed, many assessment initiatives are led by GSP staff). Species threatened by international trade are often identified through the Red Listing process. As an example, the Species Programme is organizing a workshop together with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (scheduled for June 2011) to undertake Red List assessments for all Asian snake species in order to help inform a CITES Workshop on Asian snake trade. The Species Programme has also been instrumental in helping to support development of the Red List Index, which can be used to assess the impact of the Convention on improving extinction risk of species threatened by international trade.

Objective 1.5 Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings.

a. Undertaking scientific research and population and trade monitoring to assist in the making of Non-Detriment Findings, specifically to help ensure the availability of suitable biological and population

Ongoing (although neither IUCN Secretariat nor TRAFFIC are currently tasked by the CITES Secretariat as consultant in the RST process).

Formulation of a set of guidelines to guide Specialist Group involvement in NDF formulation would be valuable (developed ogether with TRAFFIC and in consultation

10 Hoffmann et al. 2008; Amphibian Conservation – responding to the global decline of amphibians. In: Threatened Amphibians of the World. Eds. Stuart, S.N. et al. Lynx Edicions, in association with IUCN, Conservation International and NatureServe. Pp. 114‐124.



1.5.1 The number of surveys undertaken by exporting countries of: a) the population status as well as the trends and impact of trade upon Appendix-II species; and b) the status of and trend in Appendix I species and the impact of any recovery plans. 1.5.2 The number of Parties that have adopted standard procedures for making non-detriment findings. 1.5.3 The number and proportion of annual export quotas based on population surveys. 1.5.4 The number of Appendix-II species for which trade is determined to be non-detrimental to the survival of the species as a result of implementing recommendations from the Review of Significant Trade.

information. Example: The Global Species Programme provides robust support to the work of the IUCN SSC Specialist Groups in assessing species for inclusion of the Red List (indeed, many assessment initiatives are led by GSP staff). The Red List assessment process often involves the collection of important and valuable information that can be used to inform the NDF process (see 1.4g). b. Assisting Parties in the development of Non-Detriment Findings (or in formulating appropriate procedures for making Non-Detriment Findings). Example: IUCN’s now defunct Wildlife Trade programme prepared and maintained a “Checklist to assist in making non-detriment findings for Appendix II exports”15. Example: IUCN Oceania, along with the CITES Secretariat, SPC, SPREP, NOAA and regional Parties and non-Parties, attended a workshop in Honiara, Solomon Islands during May 2010 that aimed to raise awareness and understanding of the CITES NDF process for marine-listed species. Participants left the meeting with a greater understanding of the need to conserve and effectively manage species in trade, to ensure the long term ecological, social and economic sustainability of natural resources. Regional awareness about the Convention and the processes necessary for the correct implementation of CITES in the Pacific was also greatly improved. c. Providing assistance or advice to Parties on the establishment of sound export quotas. Example: N/A d. Managing or curating population-level information on CITES-listed species to inform management decisions. Example: N/A e. Participating in the Review of Significant Trade process to identify inappropriate NDFs as the basis of unsustainable levels of trade (both prior to, and at, AP

with SGs). In addition, more definitive guidance is still needed that will allow Parties to present NDF findings in a more systematic, consistent, harmonized and scientifically robust manner.

15 Rosser, A.R. and Haywood, M.J. (Compilers). (2002). Guidance for CITES Scientific Authorities: Checklist to assist in making non‐detriment findings for Appendix II exports. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xi + 146pp. http://data.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/wildlife_trade/citescop13/CITES/CITES‐guidance‐prelims.pdf



& AC meetings). Example: IUCN has jointly with TRAFFIC served as a consultant on the RST process in the past. In addition, TRAFFIC currently serves as an invited member to the advisory working group on the Evaluation of the Review of Significant Trade process (Decision 13.6716).

Objective 1.6 Parties cooperate in managing shared wildlife resources. 1.6.1 The number of bilateral and multilateral cooperative agreements that specifically provide for co-management of shared species by range states 1.6.2 The number of cooperative management plans including recovery plans in place for shared populations of CITES listed species 1.6.3 The number of workshops and other capacity-building activities that bring range states together to address the conservation and management needs of shared species.

a. Facilitating, organizing and convening dialogue meetings/workshops to examine proposals to amend the CITES Appendices. Example: The Species Programme and the Regional Offices of IUCN were originally closely involved in the African Elephant Range-State Dialogues. IUCN’s regional representatives chaired working groups at the RSDs. However, since CoP14, Resolution 14.5 describes a very specific type of meeting that can only be called for in relation to a listing proposal and must be called for by the CoP or the SC. Example: IUCN Secretariat, including members of the GSP and ELP, engaged in Range-State Dialogue meetings for Hawksbill Turtles Eretmochelys imbricata in the Caribbean. This followed the rejection of a proposal (from Cuba; Prop. 11.40) to transfer from Appendix I to Appendix II certain parts of the Caribbean population of the species inhabiting Cuban waters. Instead, a regional wide Caribbean meeting was proposed to strengthen regional cooperation on the Hawksbill Turtle issue17. b. Facilitating dialogues between RS around shared management of CITES-listed species. Example: CITES Secretariat and SPC, with support from SPREP, IUCN Oceania and NOAA, facilitated a regional workshop on the management of sustainable fisheries for giant clams (Tridacnidae) and CITES Capacity Building, in Nadi, Fiji in August 2009. Participants from regional CITES Parties and non-Parties gathered to review the current status, population and management of giant clams. Bringing together government participants and staff from the CITES Secretariat provided an opportunity for Parties to learn more about CITES and strengthen regional capacity for implementing the Convention. This workshop allowed participants to hear the difficulties

Ongoing, although now mainly in support of activity 1.6b.

16 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid13/13‐67.shtml 17 http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/hbt.shtml



affecting other CITES Parties in the region, and for the CITES Secretariat to offer advice and assistance on the mutual challenges facing the Pacific islands.

Objective 1.7 Parties are enforcing the Convention to reduce illegal wildlife trade. 1.7.1 The number of Parties that have, or are covered by: – regional enforcement action plans; – regional enforcement networks; – national enforcement action plans; and– national inter-agency enforcement coordination networks. 1.7.2 The number of Parties with designated national CITES enforcement focal points. 1.7.3 The number of Parties that have criminal law and procedures in place for investigating and penalizing CITES offences. 1.7.4 The number of Parties making use of risk assessment in order to better target their CITES enforcement effort.

a. Identifying unsustainable or illegal trade, or non-compliance of Parties with CITES legislation, and informing the relevant CITES Authorities (specifically, the Management Authority) of both importing and exporting countries, and/or the CITES Secretariat through investigations, market surveys and trade reports. N/A b. Leading on, or providing input to, reviews of the conservation status of CITES-listed species, and Parties’ progress in implementing measures to effect regulation of trade in these, identifying shortcomings and obstacles to effective control of trade, and recommending priority actions to address these. N/A c. Managing, or providing data, expertise and technical input to, monitoring projects and other information systems designed to record, measure and analyse levels and trends in illegal harvesting and trade and to determine changes in these trends over time (and the possible factors causing these, including the impact of CITES-listings on trade) so that enforcement efforts are intelligence-led. Example: N/A d. Facilitating, and/or providing support and technical expertise to, the development and implementation of regional, or species-specific, action plans or networks. Example: GSP has long provided a supporting role to Specialist Groups in the preparation of species action plans, many of which include CITES-relevant issues. e. Assist national authorities with the identification of unknown or unusual animals encountered during inspections of trade shipments or after confiscation. Example: N/A

Unchanged.


a. Preparing technical guidelines and tools to assist Parties in implementing the Convention. Example: The now-defunct Wildlife Trade Programme

Ongoing, although three key sets of guidelines produced by the Secretariat in the past - CITES: A Conservation Tool, Guidance for CITES Scientific

Revising the Guidelines for Legislation to Implement CITES22 (now nearly 20 years old) and updating Guidance for CITES Scientific



1.8.1 The number of Parties with national and regional training programmes and information resources in place to implement CITES including the making of non-detriment findings, issuance of permits and enforcement. 1.8.2 The number of training and capacity-building programmes conducted or assisted by the Secretariat. 1.8.3 The proportion of Parties having received capacity building support from the Secretariat on request.

produced the Guidance for CITES Scientific Authorities18, to assist Parties in making Non-Detriment Findings for Appendix II species, and CITES: A Conservation Tool19, which served as guidelines for Parties wishing to make amendments to the Appendices). Example: The Environmental Law Programme produced the IUCN Guidelines for Legislation to implement CITES20, intended to aid Parties formulate the contents of their legislation to implement CITES. Example: The ELC was also the first to start (in 1978) a computerized “Index to Species mentioned in Legislation” (supported by the CITES Secretariat and WWF), which had as its purpose to assist in ascertaining the legal status of species and higher taxa mentioned in international agreements (including CITES) and national legislation. By 1984, more than 1500 international and national agreements were part of the Index. Example: IUCN Oceania secured funds from the British High Commission in Fiji to produce a CITES Manual for the Fiji Islands CITES Authorities and Customs Officers. This user-friendly manual incorporates species identification guides, relevant legislation and information regarding enforcement, in order to assist in the implementation of CITES in Fiji. The manual was produced in partnership with the Department of Environment, Fiji’s State member of IUCN. b. Developing tools and guides to aid identification of species and their products in trade. Example: As noted above, a CITES Manual for the Fiji Islands CITES Authorities and Customs Officers, developed by IUCN Oceania, included species identification guides. c. Conducting training workshops (or assisting the CITES Secretariat in conducting these), to aid

Authorities, and the Guidelines for Legislation to implement CITES – have not been updated in many years mainly due to resource constraints. Further, the “Index to Species mentioned in Legislation”, maintained by ELC, was discontinued at the end of the 1990s due to lack of resources. It was initially incorporated into ECOLEX21, but then removed because it was very outdated.

Authorities (now a decade out of date) and CITES: A conservation Tool, not revised since 2004 (then in its 8th edition). Reinitiate the “Index to Species mentioned in Legislation”. The database structure exists in the former system, the Environmental Law Information System (ELIS), which is now integrated into ECOLEX.

22 De Klemm, C. 1993. Guidelines for legislation to implement CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. Available at: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002‐610/002‐610.html 18 Rosser, A.R. and Haywood, M.J. (Compilers). (2002). Guidance for CITES Scientific Authorities: Checklist to assist in making non‐detriment findings for Appendix II exports. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xi + 146pp. http://data.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/wildlife_trade/citescop13/CITES/CITES‐guidance‐prelims.pdf 19 Rosser, A.R. et al. 2004. CITES: A conservation tool. A guide to amending the appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Prepared for the Thirteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, October 2004, Thailand. IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://data.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/wildlife_trade/citescop13/CITES/CITESToolEng04.pdf 20 De Klemm, C. 1993. Guidelines for legislation to implement CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K. Available at: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002‐610/002‐610.html 21 http://www.ecolex.org/start.php



implementation of the Convention, such as training workshops for enforcement officers (including species identification, forensics, investigation techniques, surveillance) or on the use of tools or methods to, for example, undertake NDFs. Example: In 2009, ELC and the IUCN Programme Office for the Southern Caucasus organized a three-day training course on “Integrated Biodiversity-related Legislation to Approximate the EU Acquis Communautaire”. This course included components on species protection from hunting and trade, and presented CITES-related case studies on caviar and mahogany. Example: As part of the production of the CITES Manual for the Fiji Islands CITES Authorities and Customs Officers, IUCN Oceania convened a two-day workshop to train Officers on the use of the manual. Presentations were given on CITES and the Endangered and Protected Species Act (EPS Act), an introduction to CITES-listed species and the necessary permitting requirements, and the role of authorized officers in enforcement of the EPS Act. The workshop was combined with a series of practical exercises and group discussions that helped to identify issues currently hindering border enforcement, and ways in which border control processes can be improved. As noted above, IUCN Oceania also participated in a workshop in Honiara, Solomon Islands during May 2010 to raise awareness and understanding of the CITES NDF process for marine-listed species.


Encouraging IUCN state members to fulfill their unpaid contributions to CITES and promoting more realistic membership dues for CITES.

Objective 2.2 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to ensure compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the

a. Mobilizing resources to help Parties implement and enforce the Convention. Example: IUCN, in collaboration with the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility, has established

Ongoing.



Convention. 2.2.1 The number of Parties with dedicated staff and funding for Management Authorities, Scientific Authorities and wildlife trade enforcement agencies. 2.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken one or more of the following activities in the past two years: – increased the budget for activities; – hiring more staff; – development of implementation tools; – improvement of national networks; - purchase of technical equipment for monitoring and enforcement; and – computerization.

the SaveOurSpecies fund23, which will support on-the-ground field conservation projects, including for species threatened by international trade.

Objective 2.3 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to implement capacity-building programmes. 2.3.1 The number of capacity building activities mandated by Resolutions and Decisions that are fully funded.

a. Mobilizing resources to help Parties implement capacity-building efforts. Example: The CITES Secretariat is approaching the EC for funding to continue the MIKE programme until at least CoP16 (2013). IUCN is involved in the development of this project proposal, as a key implementing and technical partner. The Chair of the AfESG is leading these negotiations (supported by the Global Species Programme).

Ongoing.


Objective 3.1 Cooperation between CITES and international financial mechanisms and other related institutions is enhanced in order to support CITES-related conservation and sustainable development projects, without diminishing funding for currently prioritized activities. 3.1.1 The number of Parties funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions to develop activities that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. 3.1.2 The number of international projects funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable

a. Working with Parties to secure globally flexible funding (e.g., from the Global Environment Facility) to develop activities or projects that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. Example: In Bangladesh, the IUCN Asia office is developing a proposal to the GEF-funded National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment process, which aims to bring synergy among the Rio conventions and build capacity for implementing the three Conventions. It is at the very early stage, but CITES-related capacity building can be included.

Ongoing.

23 www.sospecies.org



development elements. 3.1.3 The number of countries and institutions that have provided additional funding for conservation and sustainable development projects in order to further the objectives of the Convention. Objective 3.2 Awareness of the role and purpose of CITES is increased globally. 3.2.1 The number of Parties that have been involved in CITES awareness raising campaigns to bring about better accessibility to and understanding by the wider public of the Convention requirements. 3.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken market surveys indicating the public’s understanding of the role and purpose of CITES. 3.2.3 The number of visits on the Secretariat’s website. 3.2.4 The number of Parties with web pages on CITES and its requirements.

a. Raising the profile of international wildlife trade generally (and associated issues and risks), through suitable communications tools and fora (including websites, posters and pamphlets, newsletters and journals, press releases and media advisories). Example: IUCN Secretariat plays an active role in communicating trade issues both formally and within the general media. Unlike TRAFFIC, the Secretariat does not maintain any trade-specific journal, but news on CITES issues is regularly disseminated via its website and through other informal communications means. b. Conducting awareness raising and demand reduction campaigns on target species and commodities Example: N.A c. Undertaking consumer surveys and studies on attitudes to wildlife consumption Example: N/A

Ongoing.

Objective 3.3 Cooperation with relevant international environmental, trade and development organizations is enhanced. 3.3.1 The number of biodiversity conservation goals, objectives and principles of CITES and those of relevant multilateral environmental, trade and development agreements and conventions that are identified and implemented in an integrated manner. 3.3.2 The number of additional biodiversity conservation, trade and development goals, scientific and technical programmes that integrate CITES requirements agreed between environmental and trade agreements and programmes and international financial mechanisms.

a. Facilitating, promoting and enhancing collaborations and dialogue with inter-governmental organizations for activities to support Parties in implementing the Convention. Examples include regional organizations (e.g., COMIFAC, SADC, EU), enforcement (Interpol, UNODC), trade and customs organizations (e.g., ITTO, WCO), UN agencies (e.g., FAO), and others (e.g., RFMO’s). Example: IUCN convened the first meeting of the Heads of Agencies Task Force on the 2010 Biodiversity Target, which included representatives from several UN agencies (e.g., UNEP, UNDP, FAO, UNESCO, UNCTAD) and conventions, including CITES. Example: IUCN Oceania has jointly facilitated, or participated in, several workshops involving SPREP, SPC and NOAA in the region.

Ongoing, although the Heads of Agencies Task Force has been discontinued.



3.3.3 The number of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations participating in and/or funding CITES workshops and other training and capacity-building activities. Objective 3.4 The contribution of CITES to the relevant Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development goals set at WSSD is strengthened by ensuring that international trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted at sustainable levels. The following indicators apply to this objective: 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5.4, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 2.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. 3.4.1 Improving conservation status of CITES-listed species as shown by tools such as the IUCN Red List Index.

a. Providing assistance on studies and the development of tools to assess the impacts (positive and negative) of CITES listing decisions on human livelihoods, and the compilation of guidelines for Parties to address these impacts. Example: CoP Decision 14.3 and 14.4 on CITES and Livelihoods24, specifically directs the Standing Committee to “draw on the technical contributions of… IUCN – The World Conservation Union”. At its 57th meeting (SC57, Geneva, July 2008), the Standing Committee agreed on the creation of a Working Group on CITES and Livelihoods to assist in the implementation of Decision 14.3 with a suggested set of terms of reference25. At CoP 15, the Standing Committee was directed to continue operation of the Working Group (Decision 15.5 to 15.726). The Secretariat is formally represented on this Working Group, by the Global Species Programme. b. Demonstrating the value and importance of sustainable international trade in species. Example: N/A

Ongoing.

Objective 3.5 Parties and the Secretariat cooperate with other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources, as appropriate, in order to achieve a coherent and collaborative approach to species which can be endangered by unsustainable trade, including those which are commercially exploited. 3.5.1 The number of cooperative actions taken to prevent species becoming threatened by unsustainable trade.

a. Fostering collaboration between CITES and other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements. Example: The ELC has worked together with the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) to develop the TEMATEA Project on Issue-based modules27, a tool to support and streamline the implementation of different conventions. Example: IUCN Statements to CoPs have usually included a call for synergy and harmonization across MEAs; for example, the statement to the Parties for CoP15 specifically remarked on the need to incorporate the post-2010 CBD targets into the CITES Strategic Vision and to in turn encourage the CBD to incorporate trade and sustainable use into its provisions28.

Ongoing Helping Parties and the CITES Secretariat foster closer synergy with biodiversity-related initiatives and conventions, including: i) aiding the Standing Committee review the adopted post-2010 CBD biodiversity targets and, if necessary, make adjustments to the CITES Strategic Vision29; ii) providing links to the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators for the Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-202030 and to the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP)31 and ensuring indicators relevant to tracking trends in the status of species subject to international trade are appropriately

24 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid14/14_03‐04.shtml 25 http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/57/E57‐14.pdf 26 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_05‐07.shtml 27 www.tematea.org 28 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_statement_to_the_parties_english.pdf 29 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_10.shtml



3.5.2 The number of times other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources are consulted on issues relevant to species subject to unsustainable trade.

developed and included; iii) fostering collaboration between CITES and the recently established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); iv) seeking linkages with other biodiversity-related conventions.

Other activities a. Providing information and guidance on taxonomic developments pertaining to CITES-listed species, review of draft CITES checklists, and drafting recommendations for adopting nomenclatural changes for species (plus wider nomenclatural streamlining processes). Example: N/A b. Technical or other input on amendments to resolutions or on terminology/definitions or interpretation of the Convention text. Example: IUCN is part of the inter-sessional Working Group on Introduction from the Sea, established at Standing Committee 57, which will “consider a definition for ‘transportation into a State’ , clarification of the term ‘State of introduction’ and the process for issuing a certificate of introduction from the sea as well as other issues identified for further consideration”, with the aim of preparing “…a discussion paper and draft revised resolution for consideration by the Standing Committee at its 62nd meeting and for consideration at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties” (Decision 14.4832). Example: Previously, ELC contributed to helping with the amendment of Resolution 12.3 (Rev. CoP14) in order to ensure that the wording appropriately incorporated reference to biological samples33. c. Providing technical input and expertise on amendments to the criteria for inclusion of Species in the Appendices. Example: The Secretariat was directed to request IUCN/TRAFFIC and FAO to each prepare a report that summarized their experience in applying criterion Annex 2 a B and the introductory text to Annex 2 a of

Ongoing.

30 Per Paragraph 5 of CBD CoP 10 DECISION X/7 on the Examination of the outcome‐oriented goals and targets and associated indicators and consideration of their possible adjustment for the period beyond 2010. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12273 31 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_11.shtml 32 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_50‐14_48.shtml) 33 http://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12‐03r14.shtml#FN0



Resolution 9.24 (Rev. CoP15) to some or all of the commercially exploited aquatic species that were proposed for inclusion on Appendix II at the 13th, 14th and 15th meetings of the Conference of the Parties, highlighting any technical difficulties or ambiguous issues encountered, including, where appropriate, illustrations of these matters by comparison with application of the criteria to other species. d. Assisting Parties with the preparation of draft recommendations. Example: N/A e. Developing, or supporting the development of, internationally accepted indicators to help Parties track and monitor the impacts of measures implemented nationally to reduce illegal wildlife trade, and the impact of CITES as a conservation tool generally. Example: Together with BirdLife International, the Zoological Society of London, and other Red List Partners, IUCN developed the IUCN Red List Index, an aggregated measure of extinction risk. The index can be disaggregated to monitor trends in species that are internationally traded or used34.

34 Butchart, S. H. M. 2008. Red List Indices to measure the sustainability of species use and impacts of invasive alien species. Bird Conservation International 18: S245‐S262; Butchart, S. H. M. et al. 2010. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science 328:1164‐1168. And see: http://www.twentyten.net/speciestrade

C. TRAFFIC past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 Goals, Objectives and Indicators



project1.


a. Facilitating national management planning processes. Example: N/A b. Identifying legal gaps, loopholes or weaknesses in existing CITES-related legislation. Example: TRAFFIC, together with ELC, is looking at the EC Wildlife Trade regulations to assess their effectiveness. This involves undertaking an in-depth analysis of the provisions, noting whether there are any issues or inconsistencies. In particular the analysis is reviewing possible inconsistencies within and between the EC Wildlife Trade Regulations as well as with the provisions and Resolutions of CITES and European Union Policies and Law, such as the Habitats Directive or the Birds Directive and the EC policy on Invasive species. c. Providing assistance to Parties (existing, new or potential) in developing national legislation that is compliant with CITES requirements. Example: TRAFFIC provided assistance with the development of the Malaysian International Trade in Endangered Species Act 2008 and Wildlife Conservation Bill 2010. d. Providing relevant input to the CITES Secretariat’s National Legislation Project. Example: Unknown

Ongoing (with a focus on encouraging awareness of new legislation and mechanisms for effective implementation).

Supporting Parties (as possible) with the updating of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) to ensure that these cover the full range of activities contained in the Convention2 (and indeed other biodiversity-related Conventions). More focus will probably be needed in engaging with non-traditional CITES government partners, such as Ministries responsible for finance, development, agriculture and economic matters.

Objective 1.2 Parties have in place administrative procedures that are transparent, practical, coherent and user-friendly, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. 1.2.1 The number of Parties that have adopted standard transparent procedures for the timely issuance of permits in accordance with Article

a. Conducting case-by-case determinations of the appropriateness of proposed exports as permit applications are received. Example: Unknown

1 http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Enforcement/NationalLawsRegulations/Resource/tabid/780/Default.aspx In analyzing a national law, the CITES Secretariat considers whether legislation appropriately designates the responsible authorities, prohibits and penalizes trade in violation of the Convention, and provides for confiscation of specimens that were illegally traded or possessed 2 The 5th Replenishment of the GEF includes USD1.2 billion for biodiversity, and ~USD500,000 is available to each GEF‐eligible country to revise its NBSAP.



VI of the Convention. 1.2.2 The number of Parties making use of the simplified procedures3 provided for in Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP13). Objective 1.3 Implementation of the Convention at the national level is consistent with decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

a. Fulfilling obligations pursuant to any Decisions and Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties that specifically request IUCN’s assistance in working with the Parties. Example: Since CITES CoP14, TRAFFIC, AfRSG and AsRSG have been mandated by Parties to provide a summary report for each CoP on rhino trends and trade issues with recommendations, and this document forms the basis of the Secretariat's report back to the Convention and in practice some its recommendations end up being incorporated into CITES rhino Decisions at CoPs.

Ongoing (with a focus on effective monitoring and evaluation of the progress on these Decisions at the Scientific and Standing Committee meetings, as well as stricter measures for non-compliance).

More emphasis needed on monitoring and evaluation of progress, as well as stricter measures for non-compliance.

Objective 1.4 The Appendices correctly reflect the conservation needs of species. 1.4.1 The number and proportion of species that have been found to meet the criteria contained in Resolution Conf. 9.24 or its successors. This includes both the periodic review4 and amendment proposals. 1.4.2 The number of unlisted species subject to significant levels of international trade, for which the trade and biological information is evaluated via a transparent mechanism including IUCN Red List and other data to identify species that would benefit from inclusion in the Appendices and the number of such species subsequently included in the Appendices.

a. Providing objective support and technical assistance to Parties in drafting new proposals for amendments to CITES Appendices. Example: TRAFFIC, together with the GWSG, worked with both the United States and Fiji, at their invitations, to provide biological, fisheries and other information for the listing proposal for inclusion of Humphead Wrasse in Appendix II. b. Providing objective, technical reviews of the proposals to amend the CITES Appendices to determine whether these meet the biological and trade criteria for the Appendices elaborated in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14) and other Resolutions and Decisions. Example: TRAFFIC and IUCN Secretariat jointly coordinate the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices (and, with some support of the CITES Secretariat, also secure the necessary funding), and solicit input and information from Commission members (invariably SSC) for the Analyses5. Following the deadline for Parties’ submission of amendment proposals, the review team (comprising staff of TRAFFIC, IUCN Secretariat, independent consultants, and sometimes SG members) compiles the available information to prepare a first draft of the Analyses. These drafts, together with a

Ongoing. There is perhaps a need for more economic analysis to be incorporated in TRAFFIC work on this area, as well as impacts on socio-economic development.

3 To issue permits and certificates to facilitate and expedite trade that will have a negligible impact on, or even benefit, the conservation of the species concerned, as provided for in Resolution 12.3 (http://www.cites.org/eng/res/12/12‐03R15.shtml) 4 http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/51/E51‐16.pdf 5 The Trade Specialist Group, which later evolved into the Wildlife Trade Programme, started this review process in 1987 for COP6. An independent review of the Analyses after COP11 concluded that they were highly valued by the Parties, and have been conducted jointly by IUCN and TRAFFIC ever since.



series of additional questions and clarifications, are then sent to a variety of reviewers for comment following which reviewers’ responses are compiled into the final document. Staff members of both TRAFFIC and IUCN may assist in the review of proposals. c. Making formal, impartial recommendations on listing proposals, based on the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses, and on selected agenda items (at CoP and other fora). Example: For each CoP, TRAFFIC produces both a set of recommendations on listing proposals6 and also on many agenda items.7 d. Providing input to the periodic review of plant and animal taxa in the CITES Appendices, to determine whether species are properly listed in the Appendices and whether a proposal to transfer a species within the Appendices or to delist it outright should be recommended to the Conference of the Parties (based on the relevant Resolution on Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II). Example: TRAFFIC regularly participates in the periodic review working groups of the AC and PC and reports on species (such as Bobcat Lynx rufus). e. Investigations to determine species likely to be at risk from international trade (including introduction from the sea), either through i) independent evaluations (e.g., market surveys, trade reviews, desk-top based analyses) or ii) in support of CITES Secretariat processes (e.g., workshops to evaluate the conservation priorities and management and enforcement needs related to specific species). Example: A 2006 study led by TRAFFIC Canada into the sale of Kaiser Spotted Newts Neurergus kaiseri revealed a flourishing internet trade that eventually culminated in its listing on CITES Appendix I at CoP 158. f. Expanding the taxonomic coverage of, and maintaining, the IUCN Red List. Example: Where available, TRAFFIC provides data

6 http://www.traffic.org/cites‐cop‐papers/CoP15_Prop_full_Recs.pdf. An internal review by TRAFFIC comparing the recommendations made by TRAFFIC for each listing proposal and the actual outcome of these proposals, found that of the 41 listing proposals submitted, Parties agreed with TRAFFIC recommendations on 25 of them (61%) and disagreed with 16 – the lowest proportion of agreement with TRAFFIC recommendations for any CITES CoP. 7 http://www.traffic.org/cites‐cop‐papers/TRAFFIC%20Recommendations%20on%20agenda%20documents.pdf 8 TRAFFIC North America. 2006. Trade in the Kaiser's Spotted Newt Neurergus kaiseri. Species Action Fund Technical Report to WWF)



that feed into the IUCN Red List assessment process.Objective 1.5 Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings. 1.5.1 The number of surveys undertaken by exporting countries of: a) the population status as well as the trends and impact of trade upon Appendix-II species; and b) the status of and trend in Appendix I species and the impact of any recovery plans. 1.5.2 The number of Parties that have adopted standard procedures for making non-detriment findings. 1.5.3 The number and proportion of annual export quotas based on population surveys. 1.5.4 The number of Appendix-II species for which trade is determined to be non-detrimental to the survival of the species as a result of implementing recommendations from the Review of Significant Trade.

a. Undertaking scientific research and population and trade monitoring to assist in the making of Non-Detriment Findings, specifically to help ensure the availability of suitable biological and population information. Example: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia commissioned detailed surveys for Southeast Asian Box Turtle Cuora amboinensis, implemented by a TFTSG member, to provide baseline data for Indonesia and Malaysia to base their NDF’s on. b. Assisting Parties in the development of Non-Detriment Findings (or in formulating appropriate procedures for making Non-Detriment Findings). Example: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, together with GWSG, worked with the SA and MA of Indonesia to develop an NDF to enable them to export CITES-listed Appendix II fish species (specifically, Humphead Wrasse Cheilinus undulatus). c. Providing assistance or advice to Parties on the establishment of sound export quotas. Example: TRAFFIC has provided advice on the establishment of export quotas for numerous taxa (e.g., mahogany, freshwater turtles and tortoises, sturgeon). d. Managing or curating population-level information on CITES-listed species to inform management decisions. Example: N/A e. Participating in the Review of Significant Trade process to identify inappropriate NDFs as the basis of unsustainable levels of trade (both prior to, and at, AP & AC meetings). Example: TRAFFIC, together with the IUCN Secretariat, has served as a consultant on the RST process in the past. In addition, TRAFFIC currently serves as an invited member to the advisory working group on the Evaluation of the Review of Significant Trade process (Decision 13.679).

Ongoing (although neither TRAFFIC nor IUCN Secretariat are currently tasked by the CITES Secretariat as consultant in the RST process).

A recent study analysed the 60 case studies produced for the International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings10, workshop conclusions, and other published literature, to identify 10 potential research directions for the scientific community which, if addressed, could greatly assist in the making of Non-Detriment Findings11. Formulation of a set of guidelines to guide Specialist Group involvement in NDF formulation would be valuable (developed together with the Secretariat and in consultation with SGs). In addition, more definitive guidance is still needed that will allow Parties to present NDF findings in a more systematic, consistent, harmonized and scientifically robust manner.

9 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid13/13‐67.shtml 10 http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/taller_ndf.html 11 Smith et al. in press. Assessing the impacts of international trade on CITES‐listed species: Current practices and opportunities for scientific research. Biological Conservation



Objective 1.6 Parties cooperate in managing shared wildlife resources. 1.6.1 The number of bilateral and multilateral cooperative agreements that specifically provide for co-management of shared species by range states 1.6.2 The number of cooperative management plans including recovery plans in place for shared populations of CITES listed species 1.6.3 The number of workshops and other capacity-building activities that bring range states together to address the conservation and management needs of shared species.

a. Facilitating, organizing and convening dialogue meetings/workshops to examine proposals to amend the CITES Appendices. Example: N/A b. Facilitating dialogues between RS around shared management of CITES-listed species. Example: Unknown

Unknown.

Objective 1.7 Parties are enforcing the Convention to reduce illegal wildlife trade. 1.7.1 The number of Parties that have, or are covered by: – regional enforcement action plans; – regional enforcement networks; – national enforcement action plans; and– national inter-agency enforcement coordination networks. 1.7.2 The number of Parties with designated national CITES enforcement focal points. 1.7.3 The number of Parties that have criminal law and procedures in place for investigating and penalizing CITES offences. 1.7.4 The number of Parties making use of risk assessment in order to better target their CITES enforcement effort.

a. Identifying unsustainable or illegal trade, or non-compliance of Parties with CITES legislation, and informing the relevant CITES Authorities (specifically, the Management Authority) of both importing and exporting countries, and/or the CITES Secretariat through investigations, market surveys and trade reports. Example: Unknown b. Leading on, or providing input to, reviews of the conservation status of CITES-listed species, and Parties’ progress in implementing measures to effect regulation of trade in these, identifying shortcomings and obstacles to effective control of trade, and recommending priority actions to address these. Example: TRAFFIC, together with AfRSG and AsRSG, has prepared a report for every CITES CoP pursuant to Resolution 9.14 (e.g., Doc.45.1A12). c. Managing, or providing data, expertise and technical input to, monitoring projects and other information systems designed to record, measure and analyse levels and trends in illegal harvesting and trade and to determine changes in these trends over time (and the possible factors causing these, including the impact of CITES-listings on trade) so that enforcement efforts are intelligence-led.

Ongoing. TRAFFIC could support establishment of regional enforcement networks in other regions, such as Central and South America.

12 Milliken, T., Emslie, R. H. & Talukdar, B. 2009. African and Asian rhinoceroses – status, conservation and trade. A report from the IUCN Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC to the CITES Secretariat pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) and Decision 14.89. Report to CITES 15th meeting (Doha, March 2010), CoP 15 Doc.45.1A annex: 1‐18. http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/doc/E15‐45‐01A.pdf



Example: Since its inception, the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) 13 has been managed by TRAFFIC on behalf of the CITES Parties. d. Facilitating, and/or providing support and technical expertise to, the development and implementation of regional, or species-specific, action plans or networks. Example: TRAFFIC is a partner in the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network, and helps implement the ASIAN-WEN’s USAID-funded Support Program. e. Assist national authorities with the identification of unknown or unusual animals encountered during inspections of trade shipments or after confiscation. Example: N/A

Objective 1.8 Parties and the Secretariat have adequate capacity-building programmes in place. 1.8.1 The number of Parties with national and regional training programmes and information resources in place to implement CITES including the making of non-detriment findings, issuance of permits and enforcement. 1.8.2 The number of training and capacity-building programmes conducted or assisted by the Secretariat. 1.8.3 The proportion of Parties having received capacity building support from the Secretariat on request.

a. Preparing technical guidelines and tools to assist Parties in implementing the Convention. Example: TRAFFIC contributed to the International Expert Workshop on CITES Non-Detriment Findings14 that produced taxon-specific guidance on preparing NDFs. b. Developing tools and guides to aid identification of species and their products in trade. Example: Unknown c. Conducting training workshops (or assisting the CITES Secretariat in conducting these), to aid implementation of the Convention, such as training workshops for enforcement officers (including species identification, forensics, investigation techniques, surveillance) or on the use of tools or methods to, for example, undertake NDFs. Example: TRAFFIC has conducted numerous workshops and other capacity-building activities aimed at increasing awareness of CITES-related national legislation among sectors such as Customs, Police, industry, transport, companies and the judiciary. It has also conducted numerous training workshops for enforcement officers. TRAFFIC, together with the GWSG, has conducted several in-country workshops to explain the use and implementation of the NDF model that it developed.

Ongoing

13 http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/etis/index.shtml 14 http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/cooperacion_internacional/TallerNDF/taller_ndf.html




Objective 2.2 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to ensure compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention. 2.2.1 The number of Parties with dedicated staff and funding for Management Authorities, Scientific Authorities and wildlife trade enforcement agencies. 2.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken one or more of the following activities in the past two years: – increased the budget for activities; – hiring more staff; – development of implementation tools; – improvement of national networks; - purchase of technical equipment for monitoring and enforcement; and – computerization.

a. Mobilizing resources to help Parties implement and enforce the Convention. Example: Unknown

Unknown Providing advice or guidance on suitable organizations (which may be IUCN members or academic institutions) to support Management Authorities or Scientific Authorities.

Objective 2.3 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to implement capacity-building programmes. 2.3.1 The number of capacity building activities mandated by Resolutions and Decisions that are fully funded.

a. Mobilizing resources to help Parties implement capacity-building efforts. Example: N/A

Unchanged.


Objective 3.1 Cooperation between CITES and international financial mechanisms and other related institutions is enhanced in order to support CITES-related conservation and sustainable development

a. Working with Parties to secure globally flexible funding (e.g., from the Global Environment Facility) to develop activities or projects that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. Example: N/A

Unchanged.



projects, without diminishing funding for currently prioritized activities. 3.1.1 The number of Parties funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions to develop activities that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. 3.1.2 The number of international projects funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements. 3.1.3 The number of countries and institutions that have provided additional funding for conservation and sustainable development projects in order to further the objectives of the Convention. Objective 3.2 Awareness of the role and purpose of CITES is increased globally. 3.2.1 The number of Parties that have been involved in CITES awareness raising campaigns to bring about better accessibility to and understanding by the wider public of the Convention requirements. 3.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken market surveys indicating the public’s understanding of the role and purpose of CITES. 3.2.3 The number of visits on the Secretariat’s website. 3.2.4 The number of Parties with web pages on CITES and its requirements.

a. Raising the profile of international wildlife trade generally (and associated issues and risks), through suitable communications tools (including websites, posters and pamphlets, newsletters and journals, press releases and media advisories) and fora. Example: TRAFFIC plays an active role in communicating trade issues both formally and within the general media. It also uses communications tools such as the www.traffic.org website, the TRAFFIC bulletin15 and other despatches16, issues media advisories17, and runs awareness campaigns18. It also enhances awareness in appropriate fora (including through dialogues, workshops and meetings with sectors such as Customs, Police, Judiciary, trade associations, and transport companies). b. Conducting awareness raising and demand reduction campaigns on target species and commodities Example: TRAFFIC has run several successful, targeted campaigns on issues as diverse as tiger bone-based medicines, souvenir alerts, and pangolins.

Ongoing.

More emphasis needed in ensuring awareness raising and demand reduction efforts are more targeted towards specific trade patterns and users, consumer demographics, consumer motivations and policy, legal or enforcement deterrents, with specific messaging and methods employed.

15 www.traffic.org/bulletin/ 16 http://www.traffic.org/newsletters/ 17 http://www.traffic.org/news_archive/ 18 http://www.traffic.org/campaigns/



c. Undertaking consumer surveys and studies on attitudes to wildlife consumption Example: TRAFFIC has conducted surveys in China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Malaysia and the US.

Objective 3.3 Cooperation with relevant international environmental, trade and development organizations is enhanced. 3.3.1 The number of biodiversity conservation goals, objectives and principles of CITES and those of relevant multilateral environmental, trade and development agreements and conventions that are identified and implemented in an integrated manner. 3.3.2 The number of additional biodiversity conservation, trade and development goals, scientific and technical programmes that integrate CITES requirements agreed between environmental and trade agreements and programmes and international financial mechanisms. 3.3.3 The number of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations participating in and/or funding CITES workshops and other training and capacity-building activities.

a. Facilitating, promoting and enhancing collaborations and dialogue with inter-governmental organizations for activities to support Parties in implementing the Convention. Examples include regional organizations (e.g., COMIFAC, SADC, EU), enforcement (Interpol, UNODC), trade and customs organizations (e.g., ITTO, WCO), UN agencies (e.g., FAO), and others (e.g., RFMO’s). Example: Unknown

Unknown.

Objective 3.4 The contribution of CITES to the relevant Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development goals set at WSSD is strengthened by ensuring that international trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted at sustainable levels. The following indicators apply to this objective: 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5.4, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 2.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1 and 3.5.2. 3.4.1 Improving conservation status of CITES-listed species as shown by tools such as the IUCN Red List Index.

a. Providing assistance on studies and the development of tools to assess the impacts (positive and negative) of CITES listing decisions on human livelihoods, and the compilation of guidelines for Parties to address these impacts. Example: CoP Decision 14.3 and 14.4 on CITES and Livelihoods19, specifically directs the Standing Committee to “draw on the technical contributions of… IUCN – The World Conservation Union”. At its 57th meeting (SC57, Geneva, July 2008), the Standing Committee agreed on the creation of a Working Group on CITES and Livelihoods to assist in the implementation of Decision 14.3 with a suggested set of terms of reference20. At CoP 15, the Standing

Ongoing.

19 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid14/14_03‐04.shtml 20 http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/57/E57‐14.pdf



Committee was directed to continue operation of the Working Group (Decision 15.5 to 15.721). TRAFFIC formally sits on this Working Group. b. Demonstrating the value and importance of sustainable international trade in species. Example: TRAFFIC were deeply involved in a workshop of live bird trade in Tanzania held in 1991 (including Wildlife Department staff, ngo’s and bird dealers) to assess the extent and value of the live bird trade in the country and to prepare policy and management recommendations for the Department of Wildlife.

Objective 3.5 Parties and the Secretariat cooperate with other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources, as appropriate, in order to achieve a coherent and collaborative approach to species which can be endangered by unsustainable trade, including those which are commercially exploited. 3.5.1 The number of cooperative actions taken to prevent species becoming threatened by unsustainable trade. 3.5.2 The number of times other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources are consulted on issues relevant to species subject to unsustainable trade.

a. Fostering collaboration between CITES and other biodiversity-related conventions and agreements. Example: N/A

Unchanged Helping Parties and the CITES Secretariat foster closer synergy with biodiversity-related initiatives and conventions, including: i) aiding the Standing Committee review the adopted post-2010 CBD biodiversity targets and, if necessary, make adjustments to the CITES Strategic Vision22; ii) providing links to the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) on Indicators for the Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-202023 and to the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP)24 and ensuring indicators relevant to tracking trends in the status of species subject to international trade are appropriately developed and included; iii) fostering collaboration between CITES and the recently established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); iv) seeking linkages with other biodiversity-related conventions.

Other activities a. Providing information and guidance on taxonomic developments pertaining to CITES-listed species, review of draft CITES checklists, and drafting recommendations for adopting nomenclatural changes for species (plus wider nomenclatural streamlining processes). Example: N/A

Ongoing.

21 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_05‐07.shtml 22 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_10.shtml 23 Per Paragraph 5 of CBD CoP 10 DECISION X/7 on the Examination of the outcome‐oriented goals and targets and associated indicators and consideration of their possible adjustment for the period beyond 2010. http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12273 24 http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_11.shtml



b. Technical or other input on amendments to resolutions or on terminology/definitions or interpretation of the Convention text. Example: Unknown. c. Providing technical input and expertise on amendments to the criteria for inclusion of Species in the Appendices. Example: The Secretariat was directed to request IUCN/TRAFFIC and FAO to each prepare a report that summarized their experience in applying criterion Annex 2 a B and the introductory text to Annex 2 a of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15) to some or all of the commercially exploited aquatic species that were proposed for inclusion on Appendix II at the 13th, 14th and 15th meetings of the Conference of the Parties, highlighting any technical difficulties or ambiguous issues encountered, including, where appropriate, illustrations of these matters by comparison with application of the criteria to other species. d. Assisting Parties with the preparation of draft recommendations. Example: N/A e. Developing, or supporting the development of, internationally accepted indicators to help Parties track and monitor the impacts of measures implemented nationally to reduce illegal wildlife trade, and the impact of CITES as a conservation tool generally. Example: TRAFFIC contributed data and information to the development of an RLI for species used for food and medicine25.

25 Butchart, S. H. M. et al. 2010. Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science 328:1164‐1168. And see: http://www.twentyten.net/speciestrade

III. THE FUTURE ENGAGEMENT OF IUCN IN CITES? 1. The current review of IUCN’s engagement in CITES was prompted by what many perceive as the

culmination of IUCN’s waning ability to influence decision making in the Convention, specifically in the wake of CoP15 where Parties appeared to pay insufficient heed to science. Indeed, that some of the listing decisions in particular (especially concerning commercially exploited marine species) at CITES CoP15 did not appear to give due consideration to the evidence presented in the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices, seems to be at the root cause of CoP15 being considered difficult (Appendix II provides a full report on CoP15).

2. Despite the perception referred to in the previous paragraph, this review demonstrates that, Union-wide, IUCN’s past and present engagement in CITES has, and continues to be, extensive, with inputs across nearly the full spectrum of objectives that fall under the current Strategic Vision and beyond. Measuring IUCN’s influence in CITES against the CoP alone (or, indeed, against CoP listings alone), without reference also to other CITES inter-sessional and policy processes, fails to account for the true extent of the Union’s leadership and influence.

3. The request from IUCN Council was to “identify better IUCN’s niche”. Unquestionably, IUCN’s key contribution to the Convention lies in its ability to provide credible science and scientific and technical advice (especially in support of the IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices, formulation of Non-Detriment Findings, the Review of Significant Trade process, etc), in its convening power (Range-State Dialogues and workshops), and in capacity building and awareness.

4. Reading between the lines, “niche” would appear to be in reference to whether or not IUCN should take a more “position-oriented” stance on listing proposals and agenda items1. The premise is that IUCN could yield more influence and achieve better success within the Convention by not maintaining a stance of staunch neutrality on issues for which there is sound science available. Adoption of a position-oriented role within CITES may, or may not, achieve greater success, but will undoubtedly have more implications than IUCN’s position-oriented role in CBD2, in particular with regards to constituency management. Clearly, this requires further investigation and consultation.

5. However, based on the findings of this review, a more immediate reason for IUCN’s apparent waning influence may simply have to do with the priority afforded it, mainly by the Secretariat. Indeed, although IUCN engagement in the Convention is extensive, it is primarily invested by SSC Specialist Groups3 and TRAFFIC. By contrast, engagement in CITES has declined noticeably across the IUCN Secretariat, both in global programmes4 and in regional offices, in tandem with a reduction in Secretariat capacity overall. Currently, the Global Species Programme (GSP) almost completely bears the responsibility for IUCN’s engagement in CITES in the Secretariat: it leads on, and is the only IUCN programme to participate in, every CITES meeting. However, even within GSP, at the behest of IUCN senior management and to some extent the TRAFFIC Committee at the time, the Species Trade and Use Unit was disbanded in March 2008 when the sole staff member was seconded to TRAFFIC International (although other staff in the GSP still carry out work on CITES issues). Likewise, many of the services and tools provided by the Environmental Law Centre (ELC), which between the 1970s and 1990s maintained considerable presence in the Convention, have been abandoned or are outdated (including the Index of Species in Legislation and the Guidelines for Legislation to Implement CITES); ELC staff no longer actively participate in CITES meetings or serve on the IUCN delegation at CoPs, and indeed it may be the case that they no longer retain the expertise to appropriately advise the Convention on complicated issues as they once did. On the other hand, it could be countered that legal capacity in the CITES Secretariat has increased, and IUCN may now have a more limited role to play in providing legal advice to the Convention anyway.

6. Concomitant with apparent diminished engagement by parts of the Secretariat is its disorganization relative to the Convention. Critical, perhaps, has been the loss of clear institution-wide leadership and coordination on CITES issues (not just species-based) within the Secretariat. The recent attempt to solicit IUCN input into the consultation on the complex issue of Introduction from the Sea serves as a case in point. The consultation process (in support of the Standing Committee inter-sessional working group)

1 TRAFFIC already produces both a set of recommendations on listing proposals and also on many agenda items. However, IUCN itself only produces recommendations on selected agenda items: those in the Position Paper produced for CITES CoP15 (Appendix II) were limited to the CBD post‐2010 plan, indicators, IPBES, CITES and livelihoods, NDFs, and criteria for inclusion of species on the Appendices. IUCN has never produced recommendations on listing proposals based on the Analyses, and, indeed, the Position Paper at CITES CoP15 failed to even encourage Parties to heed the scientific evidence presented in its own Analyses. 2 In contrast to the Union’s more neutral role in CITES, IUCN prepared a formal Position Paper on the Post‐2010 Strategic Plan for both SBSTTA and CoP, outlining explicit recommendations and views on the Mission, Vision and Targets, as well as Position Papers on several other issues, including Access and Benefit Sharing, Resource Mobilization and Sustainable Use. 3 Clearly, even this investment is not uniform, and is most evident in groups with a long history of dealing with CITES issues, such as AfESG, AfRSG, AsRSG, Crocodile SG, GWSG, and TFTSG. Nonetheless, the massive resources expended by SSC Specialist Groups and their memberships are critical to many CITES processes and activities, and yet remain entirely unaccounted for. 4 Although invited, none of the Global Marine, Forests, Economics or Communications programmes provided feedback to the current review.

was initiated by the Global Species Programme when ELC was in a far better position to lead given that Introduction from the Sea is fundamentally a legal issue requiring technical input on marine issues. In the end, IUCN proved unable to adequately mobilize its expertise around an issue of critical importance for marine species, arguably because the programme best placed to lead did not and because of a lack of capacity within some programmes on CITES. In reality, it may be that the Secretariat no longer has the expertise to engage on such an issue, but what was lacking was the institutional “oversight” to pre-determine this shortfall in the first instance.

7. Clearly, IUCN cannot bemoan its institutional impact if it fails to first organize itself internally to maximize on its ability to engage in the Convention. Engagement in World Heritage (for which IUCN has a specific policy mandate as one of three formal Advisory Bodies5), for example, is led by a dedicated programme. Even for CBD CoP10, a Convention not directly comparable to CITES, the Secretariat’s engagement was remarkable: it was highly organized, with clear leadership and communication of positions and realignment of staff-time budgets accordingly6, well represented by senior-level staff in all key lead-up events (e.g., Trondheim, SBSTTA, WGRI and the UNGA high-level segment), and the CoP delegation included 41 and 24 staff from HQ and regional offices, respectively. This cross-divisional organization is lacking even at the most basic level in the Secretariat for CITES7.

8. The situation could continue to decline at CITES CoP16 and beyond unless improved and focused engagement is achieved. It is, therefore, timely for IUCN, specifically the Secretariat, to consider whether CITES is an institutional priority (at least on a par with World Heritage) or not, and to organize itself accordingly.

Proposed Council Decisions 9. CITES presents a unique opportunity to advance IUCN’s mission, both for the conservation of threatened

species, and for the promotion of sustainable use as a tool that ensures the maintenance of livelihoods and the long-term survival of economically valuable species. IUCN has unparalleled scientific and technical expertise that can contribute to CITES, and can bring the diverse interests on its worldwide membership to bear on complex issues before CITES Parties, at global, regional and national levels. Furthermore, the problems of unsustainable use are getting worse, and CITES actually has the legal teeth to address many issues that drive unsustainability, thus making the Convention more relevant than ever. This review, therefore, proposes that Council should reaffirm the principle that close engagement with CITES is an important priority for IUCN, including the Secretariat.

10. On the basis of a reaffirmation of the high priority that IUCN should accord to CITES, it is recommended that IUCN through its Programme and Policy Group and with the support of its Network Coordinators undertake a thorough situation analysis to determine where its strengths and weaknesses lie relative to available resources and capacity, opportunities and needs. This analysis, conducted in consultation with Commission members, TRAFFIC and the IUCN Secretariat, but canvassing also the views of members, should guide the development of a formal strategy for future engagement in the Convention to help IUCN organize itself internally, particularly in the Secretariat. The engagement strategy should aim to accomplish several tasks:

a. Articulate considerations (including financial and staffing resource implications) for IUCN to address in assigning roles, responsibilities and leadership within the IUCN Secretariat (and IUCN more broadly) to ensure sufficient capacity and efficient communication and coordination on CITES-related issues, both internally and with Commission members, TRAFFIC and the CITES Secretariat.

b. Contribute to the re-establishment of the formal MoU between the CITES Secretariat and IUCN to establish a formal basis of cooperation.

c. Address the fundamental consideration of whether IUCN’s remit in the Convention is limited solely to the delivery of credible scientific and technical information and data8, or whether it is also able to make formal recommendations (as part of its Position Papers for AC, PC and CoPs) based, of course, on these sound scientific findings. A move to become more “position”-oriented engenders trade-offs, and IUCN should not jeopardize its role as a provider of honest, objective, scientifically sound information that can guide conservation decisions. That said, recommendations based on sound science need not compromise IUCN’s reputation as an objective and scientific-based organization, and models already exist to aid such functions and constituency

5 http://whc.unesco.org/en/advisorybodies/ 6 IUCN’s preparations for CBD CoP10 came under the new approach to policy adopted in 2010: it was led by a Global Director and supported by the Network coordinator for the CPA. 7 Preparation for CITES CoP15 was led by and carried out almost entirely by IUCN Species Programme and primarily by a small number of staff who shouldered the burden for producing all materials (along with the assistance of relevant SSC Specialist Groups). The delegation comprised 15 people, including 5 people from HQ (three from communications), 1 person from TRAFFIC, and two persons from programmes or regions. IUCN was under‐resourced, poorly prepared and much able to deliver its work at CITES CoP15 than at CBD COP10. 8 A rapid survey of views from participants in CITES CoP 14 revealed strong support for IUCN’s role in CITES as a provider of credible technical advice. Source: Anonymous. IUCN’s Role in CITES: A rapid survey of views from participants at the CITES COP 14.

management (e.g., the World Heritage Convention Operational Guidelines9 and associated World Heritage Panel established by the Director-General to provide high-quality technical and scientific advice to IUCN on its work as an advisory body to the World Heritage Committee).

d. Clarify IUCN’s niche relative to, and its working relationship with, TRAFFIC and WWF (the other parent organization of TRAFFIC)10, how the three organizations can mutually support and complement their respective CITES strategies and plans, and how to avoid duplication of effort.

9 http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08‐en.pdf (see, in particular, Annex 6 B, which relate to IUCN procedures for the evaluation of natural properties). 10 Shortly after the conclusion of CoP15, WWF circulated an internal discussion document on the development of a strategy for WWF towards CoP16, as also did TRAFFIC (attached as Appendix IV).

Annex 1. Current Engagement Procedures for IUCN Secretariat and Commission staff and Commission members, with particular reference to the Conference of Parties Conference of Parties: Commission members are likely to participate in CoP in one of three primary ways: 1) as a representative of a Party to the Convention; 2) as a representative of a non-governmental or other intergovernmental organization; or 3) as an invited representative on the IUCN delegation1. Commission members may also serve in a formal capacity within CITES at CoP (e.g., as Chairman of Committee I or II). Officially employed staff of the IUCN Secretariat and Commissions are likely to attend the CoP only on the formal IUCN Delegation, but may also attend on behalf of country (Party) delegations2 (although according to Secretariat Procedures for Policy Work3 this must be approved by the relevant Director and the Head of the IUCN Delegation). Commission staff on the IUCN delegation may include Programme or Scientific Officers of taxon-based Specialist Groups. Commission members and Commission and Secretariat staff participating in the IUCN Delegation are all subject to the Secretariat Procedures for IUCN’s Policy Work4. This includes that the Head of the Delegation is responsible for all formal communications on behalf of IUCN, and approving statements and press releases. Delegates, in turn, are expected to communicate support for IUCN positions, and to “define and implement…a strategy to support/advocate IUCN’s position on that issue”. CITES Committees IUCN engagement in CITES Standing Committee (SC) meetings is likely to be through: i) participation by the Secretariat as a formal observer at the meeting of the Committee (along with TRAFFIC, which attends as an independent observer); ii) Commission members may participate as representatives of Parties that are members of the SC, or as delegated observers sent by Parties not members of the SC; and iii) Commission members of IUCN Secretariat or Commission staff may attend as invited observers by the Chairman of the SC. Engagement in the Animals and Plant Committees (AC & PC) may include: i) Commission members serving as elected members (or alternate members) of the AC & PC; ii) Commission members serving as the elected Chairman or Vice-Chairman of either AC & PC; iii) Commission members and/or IUCN or Secretariat staff representing a Party as an observer; and iv) IUCN Secretariat and/or Commission staff who attend as an invited observer by the Chairman of either AC & PC (TRAFFIC staff usually attend as observers). Inter-sessional, non-Committee processes: Inter-sessionally, IUCN Commission members and IUCN Secretariat and Commission staff may engage in CITES in any one of the many activities outlined in the framework above. Secretariat staff are subject to the formal Procedures, as are all Commission members attending in a formal IUCN capacity (e.g., representing IUCN as the institutional observer); otherwise, Commission members are expected to remain cognisant of avoiding potential conflicts of interest. For example, in the case of the CITES Analyses, where possible conflict of interest may arise due to members of Specialist Groups having been directly involved in supporting Parties to draft new proposals for amendments to CITES Appendices (or indeed been directly responsible for initial drafting the proposals), it is the responsibility of such members to disclose to the Analyses review team any potential conflict of interest in order to ensure independent, non-biased review5.

1 For example, in the case of the AfRSG, the Scientific Officer attended as part of the IUCN Delegation, while seven other AfRSG members attended representing range States and non‐governmental and international governmental organizations. 2 For example, IUCN Oceania’s Species Officer, Helen Pippard, was invited to attend CoP15 as part of the Fiji delegation. 3 http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/global_policy/ (last version 7th May). 4 http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/global_policy/ (last version 7th May). 5 For example, TFTSG adopts the following protocol: 1.The IUCN/TRAFFIC Analyses team is made aware of the Specialist Group’s involvement in drafting the proposal(s), generally informally during the drafting process, and again at the time of the initial Analyses request; 2. At review stage, the Specialist Group provides focused feedback on topics that were signalled in the Analyses team’s first‐pass review; and 3. The SG encourages the involvement of, and recommends, additional reviewers who were not involved in the drafting of the proposal.

(únicamente en inglés / seulement en anglais)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN

ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA AND IUCN-THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION

July 1999

Preamble

This Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is entered into between the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora herein referred to as the "CITES Secretariat" and IUCN-The World Conservation Union herein referred to as "IUCN". The principal purpose of the MoU is to establish a formal basis of cooperation between IUCN and the CITES Secretariat to better assist implementation of the Convention.

Background

The CITES Secretariat and IUCN have a long history of co-operation in ensuring the most effective possible implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). IUCN was instrumental in stimulating the creation of CITES, from a General Assembly resolution (7th GA, Resolution 14) and IUCN Environmental Law Centre (IUCN ELC) provided a first draft of CITES as did the Government of Kenya. Over the years, CITES has made increasing use of the IUCN networks, in order to execute the Decisions and Resolutions of the CITES Parties. Several Decisions and Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties specifically mandate IUCN to work with the CITES Secretariat and the Parties.

Both the CITES Secretariat and IUCN recognise the potential benefits of establishing a formal basis for co-operation and ensuring involvement of all parts of the IUCN network to assist the CITES Secretariat in implementation of the Convention.

Terms of Agreement

The CITES Secretariat agrees to nominate IUCN as a major technical advisor to the Convention. Subject to the terms of Administration set forth below, the general tasks of this Memorandum of Understanding are outlined below. These general tasks cover activities undertaken by IUCN for the CITES Secretariat and not for any individual Party to CITES. Specific tasks will be set out in subsequent annexes.

General Tasks

1. provision of scientific information, including

– analyses of proposals to amend the appendices of the Conference of the Parties

– contribute to the review of significant trade in CITES species – access to IUCN / UNEP environmental law information service

2. development and implementation of field projects, including

– a system for monitoring of illegal killing of elephants (MIKE) – individual species projects

3. assistance with training activities, including

– implementation of guidelines for non-detriment findings, application of the criteria for listing species in the CITES Appendices

– development of training materials and workshops as appropriate and in conjunction with other relevant organisations

4. scientific and technical advisory role, including

– the Animals Committee and Plants Committee – technical assistance to support Parties in implementation of the

Convention – development and implementation of laws that support CITES

5. facilitation role, including

– Range States Dialogues – liaison with other conservation conventions and organisations

Administration

This Memorandum will be effective on the date of signature and is effective for five years. The Memorandum of Understanding may be modified only by written mutual agreement of the parties. If either party elects to end the relationship they must provide ninety (90) days written notice to each Party of the intent to terminate.

Individual activities undertaken under this Memorandum will be contracted as Annexes to this document with specific budgets and resource identification included.

To ease communication and to co-ordinate implementation of the terms of this Memorandum and subsequent annexes, the CITES Secretariat and IUCN will identify focal points in their respective organisations. Once a year the focal points will be responsible for organising a small joint meeting to assess the effectiveness of existing collaborative activities and the opportunities for future collaboration. They will mutually agree upon an annual workplan that will set out the list of activities for the coming year.

Both IUCN and the CITES Secretariat agree to work jointly to fund-raise for this work. IUCN cannot be responsible to provide any of the services mentioned above without sufficient resources.

None of the parties to this Memorandum shall make any commitments or take any positions on behalf of the other without that organisation's specific, written authorised consent. In addition, each organisation shall maintain the right to express its opinion individually; on topics related to this Memorandum, each organisation will strive to notify the other before taking any public position in relation to any issue on which there is current collaboration. No party to this

Memorandum has the authority on its own to create any binding legal obligations on behalf of the other party.

Signatories:

_____________________________ Date: 8 October 1999

Willem Wijnstekers Secretary General CITES – Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

_____________________________ Date: 8 October 1999

Maritta R. von Beberstein Koch-Weser Director General IUCN - The World Conservation Union

POSITION PAPER

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

IUCN Statement to the Parties CITES 15th Conference of the Parties – 13-25 March 2010

For more information, please contact : Dr. Sue Mainka Head Science and Learning IUCN Headquarters Tel: +41 22 999 0150 Fax: +41 22 999 0025 [email protected] IUCN World Headquarters Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel: +41 22 999 0000 Fax: +41 22 999 0002 [email protected] www.iucn.org

IUCN recommendations CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013, the Convention on Biological Diversity Strategic Plan and post 2010 targets (8, 10.1)

• Parties adopt the CITES Secretariat’s decision in CoP15 Doc. 10.1 to incorporate the post-2010 CBD targets into the CITES Strategic Vision

• CITES encourage the CBD as much as possible to incorporate trade and sustainable use principles into the CBD post-2010 targets and the text for their implementation.

Indicators for monitoring implementation of CITES and the post-2010 targets (10.1) • CITES support further development of relevant indicators for measuring both

progress towards CBD’s biodiversity target but also the overall effectiveness of CITES.

IPBES (10.1) • Parties accept the decision of CoP15 Doc. 10.1 regarding CITES participating

in IPBES if it is established. • CITES Parties support the development of IPBES as a science / policy

interface mechanism that meets the needs of CITES in addition to other MEAs. • CITES identify its policy priorities that would benefit from such a mechanism as

IPBES, and communicate these to the 3rd meeting of IPBES in June and to the first meeting of the IPBES Plenary if and when it is established.

CITES and Livelihoods (14) • Parties support the decision of CoP15 Doc. 14 Annex II regarding continuing

the mandate of the working group on CITES and livelihoods, to identify practical measures and tools to address the potential impacts of CITES listings on livelihoods. This working group should also further consider the draft principles in CoP15 Doc 14 Annex I. IUCN encourages Parties to contribute their experiences to the livelihoods working group to ensure that the voluntary guidelines are practical.

Making non-detriment findings (16.2) • Further capacity building for Scientific Authorities, particularly in developing

nations, and continued development of guidance on making non-detriment findings be continued. IUCN stands ready to support and contribute to this.

• Parties support and contribute to a long-term financial mechanism that would support and fund range states in implementing non-detriment findings.

Criteria for the inclusion of species in Appendices I and II (63) • Parties support the decisions proposed in the Annex to CoP15 Doc.63.

IUCN Statement to the Parties The Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP 15) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) takes place in 2010, the UN designated International Year of Biodiversity. It is also the year that the world will

assess its success in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 Biodiversity Target “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level”, a target which the CITES Strategic Vision also

mailto:[email protected]�

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.iucn.org/�

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature): Position Paper Page 2

includes. Currently, IUCN has assessed the conservation status of only 47,978 out of 1.8 million described species worldwide (2.5%) on the IUCN Red List and notably, 12% of birds, 21% of mammals, 30% of amphibians, 27% of reef-building corals, and 35% of conifers and cycads have been found to be threatened with extinction. Many of these species are affected by international trade activities. Approximately 5,000 animal species and 28,000 species of plants are currently on the CITES Appendices – so a total of 33,000 species. CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013, the Convention on Biological Diversity Strategic Plan and post 2010 targets (8, 10.1) In 2002, the Conference of the Parties to the CBD adopted a strategic plan and mission to achieve the 2010 Biodiversity Target. The CBD has now developed post-2010 targets to carry this work into the future, which will be discussed by all Parties at the upcoming Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) meeting in May and at the Conference of the Parties (CoP) meeting in October. Governments, including CITES Parties, will convene at CBD CoP10 in October in Japan to assess progress on the target. IUCN believes that a post-2010 framework should include a Vision for 2050, a biodiversity target (Mission) for 2015 / 2020, short term targets with milestones for 2015 and indicators to measure progress against these targets. Importantly for this CITES CoP15 meeting, IUCN believes that a synergistic approach is needed amongst related biodiversity conventions and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) for dealing with the CBD’s post-2010 targets. IUCN welcomes recognition of the need to incorporate into the 2008-2013 CITES Strategic Vision elements that complement the CBD’s post-2010 biodiversity targets. CITES should work closely with the CBD in developing and finding ways to implement the post-2010 targets. Examples of specific areas of complementarity between CITES Goal 3, Contribute to significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by ensuring that CITES and other multilateral instruments and processes are coherent and mutually supportive “ and CBD targets include CBD’s Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) Target 11 “No species of wild flora endangered by international trade” and CITES and CBD’s

mutual interests in sustainable use of wild species as well as issues of access and benefit sharing. IUCN also suggests that the CITES Secretariat and Parties encourage the CBD as much as possible to incorporate trade and sustainable use principles into the CBD post-2010 targets and the text for their implementation. CITES should be referred to at least in the indicators for relevant targets. In turn, the CITES Strategic Vision should reflect how CBD targets relating to trade can be accomplished. Inevitably, Parties will be faced with making decisions about which particular aspects of the CITES Strategic Vision to implement unless additional funding is identified. When setting priorities for the Strategic Vision, IUCN urges the CITES Parties and Secretariat to pay particular attention to the linkages with the CBD’s post-2010 targets. IUCN also suggests that Parties identify and support elements of the CITES costed work programme that would best assist Parties (particularly from the developing world) in meeting the challenges of implementing the Strategic Vision and Action Plan. IUCN recommends that:

• Parties adopt the CITES Secretariat’s decision in CoP15 Doc. 10.1 to incorporate the post-2010 CBD targets into the CITES Strategic Vision

• CITES encourage the CBD as much as possible to incorporate trade and sustainable use principles into the CBD post-2010 targets and the text for their implementation.

Indicators for monitoring implementation of CITES and the post-2010 targets (10.1) The CITES Secretariat has been working with UNEP-WCMC and the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP) to develop an indicator for measuring progress towards CBD’s 2010 biodiversity target “No species of wild flora or fauna endangered by international trade”. The indicator is called ‘Status of species in trade’ and is based on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species, specifically the Red List Index which tracks trends in species threat status over time (e.g. indicating whether species’ threat status is increasing or decreasing). So far, preliminary results of this indicator show that bird species in international trade are less threatened than other bird species, so other factors have a more negative impact on birds than international


trade. However, the IUCN Red List Index also indicates that international trade of birds, primarily for pets and food, is currently unsustainable and remains a threat. IUCN recommends that:

• CITES support further development of relevant indicators for measuring both progress towards CBD’s biodiversity target but also the overall effectiveness of CITES.

IPBES (10.1) The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is a proposed mechanism for further strengthening the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and ensuring that decisions on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services are made using the best available scientific information. The function of IPBES would include responding to the needs of biodiversity MEAs through providing targeted assessment information, and building capacity of the scientific community to engage in policy processes relating to conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services at different scales. The CITES Secretariat states in the Annex to CoP15 Doc. 10.1 that both the Secretariat and the Animals and Plants Committees “shall, if invited, participate in discussions concerning a possible Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”. IUCN strongly supports the need for IPBES and, in addition to supporting multi-stakeholder involvement in the consultations to date, has developed a vision paper to contribute to ongoing discussions and especially to support the 3rd IPBES meeting to be held in June this year (June 7-11 in South Korea). In IUCN’s vision for IPBES, we recommend that IPBES meet the needs of multiple conventions and other processes including CITES, CBD, Ramsar, UNCCD, ITPGR and CMS. IUCN also proposes that IPBES help provide guidance to the scientific community on policy priorities that are identified by these conventions, including through direct requests from subsidiary bodies of MEAs. IUCN also believes that IPBES would operate most effectively not by undertaking research itself, but by identifying gaps in policy-relevant science that could be filled by further research, and by assessing available science to better inform policy processes, including through assessing the effectiveness of policy response options that will impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

IUCN recommends that: • Parties accept the decision of CoP15

Doc. 10.1 regarding CITES participating in IPBES if it is established.

• CITES Parties support the development of IPBES as a science / policy interface mechanism that meets the needs of CITES in addition to other MEAs.

• CITES identify its policy priorities that would benefit from such a mechanism as IPBES, and communicate these to the 3rd meeting of IPBES in June and to the first meeting of the IPBES Plenary if and when it is established.

CITES and Livelihoods (14) CITES CoP15 takes place in a world that increasingly recognizes the critical role of biodiversity, sustainable development and well-managed trade in providing options for livelihoods. Sustainable trade of animals and plants can directly improve the livelihoods of people, particularly for communities and governments that rely directly on natural resources for income. At the same time, loss of trade and development opportunities through regulation can impact economic options. A fine balance between conserving biodiversity and promoting trade and development must be reached. IUCN has long recognized that the sustainable use of wild living resources is an important conservation tool because the social and economic benefits derived from such use provide incentives for people to conserve them. IUCN’s approach is embodied in IUCN policy including Resolution WCC 2.29 “IUCN Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources” and WCC 3.074, “Implementing the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for Sustainable Use of Biodiversity”. Many agenda items that will be discussed at CITES CoP15 directly relate to sustainable use and livelihood issues, particularly regarding marine species and commercial fisheries. IUCN believes that CITES can contribute to sustainable resource use through helping to develop new processes and improve existing processes for the management of commercially important species, such as those targeted by fishing and timber trades. In particular, CITES has a strong role in ensuring that such processes are implemented and enforced. Such actions will enable a stronger role for CITES in ensuring the well-being of human populations, not only through investigating and mitigating how CITES decisions impact communities but also determining how CITES decisions can


promote long-term sustainable management of species involved in international trade. IUCN recommends that:

• Parties support the decision of CoP15 Doc. 14 Annex II regarding continuing the mandate of the working group on CITES and livelihoods, to identify practical measures and tools to address the potential impacts of CITES listings on livelihoods. This working group should also further consider the draft principles in CoP15 Doc 14 Annex I. IUCN encourages Parties to contribute their experiences to the livelihoods working group to ensure that the voluntary guidelines are practical.

Making non-detriment findings (16.2) IUCN believes that the making of reliable non-detriment findings is at the heart of implementing CITES for species included in Appendix II. This also relates to implementation of CITES Strategic Vision objective 1.5 which is “Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings”. In 2002, CITES and IUCN produced the publication Guidance for CITES Scientific Authorities: Checklist to assist in making non-detriment findings for Appendix II exports as a tool for Parties. However it was considered that further practical guidance was needed on making non-detriment findings and in 2008 IUCN was given the opportunity to participate in the International expert workshop on non-detriment findings held in Mexico, the report of which is contained in Annex A of CoP15 Doc. 16.2.2. At that workshop significant progress was made in further developing guidance for Scientific Authorities on the making of non-detriment findings. However, IUCN recognizes that many Parties still lack the capacity and resources to make thorough non-detriment findings, and notes that for many species the “best available scientific information” may be very basic. IUCN therefore strongly supports further capacity building in this regard for Scientific Authorities and the continued development of guidance, particularly for cases where there is little information. IUCN notes that the European Commission has generously provided funds to strengthen the capacity of developing countries to implement CITES including addressing immediate data needs (see CoP 15 Doc 16.1). In addition, the Secretariat has proposed in a draft Decision in Doc 18 Annex 10 b the establishment of a financial mechanism to secure long-term

funding to support the provision of technical assistance to CITES Parties in relation to regulating wildlife trade (including population studies as a basis for management programmes), which could provide support and funding to range States for implementing non-detriment findings and strengthening sustainable resource management. IUCN strongly supports the development of such a long-term financial mechanism. IUCN recommends that:

• Further capacity building for Scientific Authorities, particularly in developing nations, and development of guidance on making non-detriment findings be continued. IUCN stands ready to support and contribute to this process.

• Parties support and contribute to a long-term financial mechanism that would support and fund range states in implementing non-detriment findings.

Criteria for the inclusion of species in Appendices I and II (63) Since the listing criteria in Res. Conf 9.24 were adopted in 1994, IUCN and TRAFFIC have applied them to the proposals submitted by Parties to amend the Appendices when writing the IUCN/ TRAFFIC Analyses of the proposals to amend the CITES Appendices publication that is produced for each CITES CoP meeting. While in general the criteria are clear, in particular for listing species in Appendix I, there are areas where it is more difficult to apply the criteria for listing species in Appendix II, for instance for non-vertebrates (e.g. corals and trees) and non-terrestrial vertebrates (e.g. sharks). With the consideration in recent years of more proposals to list non-terrestrial vertebrates, it is evident that it is difficult to apply the criteria equally to all taxa. It would appear that it is an opportune time to examine this and other issues such as application of the decline criteria for relatively long-lived species in applying the criteria in Res. Conf 9.24 (CoP14). IUCN supports the decisions proposed in the Annex to CoP15 Doc. 63 to investigate some of the issues with applying the criteria to potential Appendix II-listed species. IUCN would be pleased to offer our experience and expertise in applying the criteria to any process that results from these decisions. IUCN recommends that:

• Parties support the decisions proposed in the Annex to CoP15 Doc.63.

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/SSC-OP-027.pdf�




1

Report from CITES 15th Conference of the Parties Meeting March 13 - 25, 2010

General Introduction The 15th CITES Conference of the Parties Meeting (CITES CoP15) took place March 13 to 25, 2010 in Doha, Qatar. CoP meetings provide the occasion for Parties to CITES to:

• Review progress in the conservation of species included in the Appendices; • Consider (and where appropriate adopt) proposals to amend the lists of species in

Appendices I and II; • Consider discussion documents and reports from the Parties, the permanent

Committees, Secretariat and working groups; • Recommend measures to improve the effectiveness of the Convention; and • Make provisions (including the adoption of a budget) necessary to allow the

Secretariat to function effectively.

For general information on CITES, see: http://www.cites.org/ . The CoP15 agenda and other pre and post meeting documents are at: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml. IUCN’s delegation at the CITES CoP15 meeting consisted of: 1. Sue Mainka, Head of Science and Learning

• Overall lead of IUCN delegation, proposals, agenda #8,10.1 2. Dena Cator, SSC Network Support Officer, IUCN Species Programme

• CoP15 preparation coordinator, agenda #10.1, 10.4, 20, 21, 27, 32, 36, 37, 42, 46, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 64

3. Thomasina Oldfield, secondee to TRAFFIC, Research and Analysis Programme • Analyses of proposals, agenda #10.1, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 41, 59, 63, 68

4. Simon Stuart, Chair Species Survival Commission • Second lead of IUCN delegation, proposals, agenda #43, 47, 61

5. Kent Carpenter, Global Marine Species Assessment Coordinator • Marine-related proposals and tuna, coral, hawksbill turtle agenda #50, 52, 54

6. Holly Dublin and Diane Skinner, Chair and Programme Officer of the African Elephant Specialist Group

• Elephant proposals and agenda #44 7. Tom Dacey, Crocodile Specialist Group

• Crocodile proposals and agenda #28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40 8. Richard Emslie, African Rhino Specialist Group

• Rhino agenda #45 9. Sonja Fordham and Sarah Fowler, Shark Specialist Group

• Shark proposals and agenda #53 10. Yvonne Sadovy, Chair Groupers and Wrasses Specialist Group

• Humphead wrasse agenda #51 11. Peter Paul van Dijk, Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles Specialist Group

• Reptile and amphibian proposals and agenda #48, 49 12. Odeh al Jayyousi, Regional Director, IUCN Office for West Asia (ROWA)

http://www.cites.org/�

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml�

2

• General 13. Brian Thomson, Nicki Chadwick, Rania Faouri

• Communications During the meetings, IUCN participated in plenary discussions and worked with Specialist Group representatives to make interventions where appropriate, clarify data, request actions to be done or offer assistance. The following report summarizes key points of the CITES CoP15 meeting, in particular those agenda items relevant to IUCN and the Species Survival Commission (SSC). For the official meeting documents, summary reports and other information produced by the CITES Secretariat, see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml. In particular, for the list of final Decisions from CITES CoP15, see: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/index.shtml. For the list of new, revised or repealed Resolutions from the meeting, please see: http://www.cites.org/eng/res/cop15changes.shtml. For the IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin report on CITES CoP15, see: http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2167e.pdf . Issue Summary and Relevance Standing Committee Meeting Relevance to Specialist Group(s) Page 8. Implementation of the Strategic Vision: 2008-2013

All 4

10. Cooperation with other organizations 10.1 Synergy with biodiversity-related international initiatives

All 5

10.2 Cooperation with FAO All 7 10.4 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation of the Convention on Biological Diversity

Plant SGs 7

13. Cooperation between Parties and promotion of multilateral measures

All 7

14. CITES and livelihoods All 8 16. Capacity Building 16.2 International expert workshop on non-detriment findings

All 9

16.3 Non-detriment findings for timber, medicinal plants and agarwood

Global trees and Medicinal plants SGs

10

17. Incentives for the implementation of the Convention

All 11

18. Review of Resolutions All 11 19. Review of Decisions All 12 20. National laws for implementation of the Convention

All 15

21. National reports All 15 24. Enforcement matters All 16 26. Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II plant species

Plant SGs 17

27. Introduction from the sea Marine SGs 17

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml�

http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/index.shtml�

http://www.cites.org/eng/res/cop15changes.shtml�

http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2167e.pdf�

3

28. Ranching and trade in ranched specimens Crocodile SG, other ranching 18 29. Production systems for specimens of CITES-listed species

Crocodile SG, other ranching 19

30. Electronic permitting Crocodile SG, other ranching 19 31. Purpose codes on CITES permits and certificates


32. E-commerce of specimens of CITES-listed species


34. Review of the universal tagging system and trade in small crocodilian leather goods

Crocodile SG 21

35. Standard nomenclature All 22 36. Identification of CITES-listed corals in trade

Coral SG, marine SGs 22

37. Identification of worked specimens of black coral (Antipatharia) and parts thereof in trade


40. Personal and household effects All 23 41. Applications to register operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes

BirdLife International 24

42. Great apes Primate SG 24 43. Asian big cats 43.1 Report of the Secretariat Cat SG 24 43.2 Proposed revision of Resolution Conf. 12.5 on Conservation of and trade in tigers and other Appendix-I Asian big cat species

Cat SG 25

44. Elephants 44.1 Monitoring of illegal trade in ivory and other elephant specimens (includes an ETIS (Elephant Trade Information System) report on illegal elephant trade submitted by TRAFFIC East / Southern Africa)

Elephant SGs 26

44.2 Monitoring of illegal hunting in elephant range States

Elephant SGs 26

45. Rhinoceroses 45.1 Report of the Secretariat (and Annex TRAFFIC / IUCN status update document)

Rhino SGs 27

45.2 Revision of Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) on Conservation of and trade in African and Asian rhinoceroses

Rhino SGs 28

46. Tibetan antelope Antelope SG 28 47. Saiga antelope Antelope SG 28 48. Snake trade and conservation management n/a 30 49. Tortoises and freshwater turtles Tortoises & Freshwater Turtles

SG 30

50. Hawksbill turtle Marine Turtle SG 31

4

51. Humphead wrasse: additional management measures needed to combat IUU fishing

Groupers and Wrasses SG 31

52. Atlantic bluefin tuna Tuna & billfish SG, marine SGs 32 53. Conservation and management of sharks and stingrays

Shark SG, marine SGs 33

54. Conservation of and trade in Coralliidae species


55. Trade in epiphytic cacti (Cactaceae spp.) Cactus and Succulent SG 34 56. Euphorbia spp. Plant SGs 34 57. Cedrela odorata, Dalbergia retusa, Dalbergia granadillo and Dalbergia stevensonii

Global Trees SG 34

58. Bigleaf mahogany Global Trees SG 35 59. Taxus cuspidate (Japanese Yew) Global Trees SG 35 60. Agarwood-producing taxa Global Trees SG 36 61. Report of the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group

Animal SGs 36

62. Periodic Review of the Appendices All 37 63. Criteria for the inclusion of species in Appendices I and II

All 37

64. Cactaceae and Orchidaceae: review of annotations

Cactus and Succulent SG, Orchid SG

37

65. Orchids: annotations for species included in Appendix II

Orchid SG 38

66. Annotations for tree species included in Appendices II and III

Global Trees SG 38

67. Inconsistent implementation of Appendix-III timber listings annotated to include only the national populations of the listing countries

All 38

68. Proposals to amend Appendices I and II Canid SG, Cat SG, Bear SG, African Elephant SG, BirdLife International, Crocodile SG, Iguana SG, Amphibian SG, Shark SG, Tuna and Billfish SG, Coral SG, Madagascar Plant SG, Cactus and Succulent SG, Global Trees SG, Orchid SG, Palm SG, S. African Plant SG

38

CITES Conference of the Parties Meeting (CITES CoP15) Summary 8. Implementation of the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-08.pdf The Secretariat introduced this item and noted that several other CITES CoP15 agenda items included decisions relevant to the Strategic Vision, including document 10.1 that discussed potential changes that could result from post-2010 biodiversity targets being

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-08.pdf�

5

adopted at CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) CoP10, and document 21 which focused on species trade reporting at the national level. The document for agenda item 8 proposed revising Decision 14.37 in document CoP15 Doc. 21 on National reports, which was done (see agenda item 21). The US pointed out that time for implementing the Strategic Vision was almost half over yet Parties were still debating how to measure its implementation. CITES Parties adopted an amended Decision 14.37 as per below which specifies that reporting for the CITES Strategic Vision indicators needs to be done by Standing Committee meeting 61 (SC61) in 2011 and the indicators need to start being applied by SC62 in 2012. The final revised version of Decision 14.37 that was adopted at CITES CoP15 is below and also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_37-38.shtml. Directed to the Standing Committee 14.37 (Rev. CoP15)

The Standing Committee, with the assistance of its Working Group on Special Reporting Requirements and the Secretariat, shall: a) continue its review of the recommendations to Parties to provide special reports under the Convention, assess whether they have been or might be effectively incorporated into the annual and biennial reports, and consider how the biennial report format might be revised to facilitate such incorporation; b) revise the standard biennial report format to gather information from Parties on incentive measures for implementation of the Convention, conservation measures for Appendix-I listed species and case studies on user fees; c) by its 61st meeting (SC61), follow up on how the reporting required in the indicators for the CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013 would be undertaken and, by SC62, begin applying the indicators; and d) report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties on its conclusions and recommendations.

10.1 Synergy with biodiversity-related international initiatives Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-10-01.pdf This agenda item highlights four specific initiatives of particular relevance to CITES: 1) the development of post-2010 biodiversity targets for the CBD, 2) the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (BIP), 3) the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and 4) Climate change/ work of the UNFCCC. Parties were asked to consider several draft decisions relating to each of these initiatives. Parties were generally supportive of the draft decision to update the CITES Strategic Vision to be in line with the post-2010 CBD targets that will be adopted at CBD CoP10. Parties also supported continued CITES engagement in the BIP initiative with only minor changes to the draft proposed decision. However, there were concerns expressed about CITES engagement with both IPBES and climate change activities. With respect to IPBES, CITES is not advising for or against an IPBES being created but, should such a body be formed, CITES would be interested in participating and providing support for implementation. CITES Parties such as China suggested that climate change was beyond the mandate of CITES and should not be pursued, while the US suggested amendments to

http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_37-38.shtml�

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-10-01.pdf�

6

the draft climate change decisions that would focus on identifying the impact of climate change on decisions required for CITES implementation, namely non-detriment findings (NDFs) and listing criteria. In the end, decisions were adopted both relating to IPBES and climate change as well. The final decisions that were adopted relating to this agenda item are as follows: Post-2010 biodiversity targets Directed to the Standing Committee

15.10 The Standing Committee shall review the adopted post-2010 biodiversity targets and, if necessary, make adjustments to the CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013 as appropriate. See: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_10.shtml

Biodiversity Indicators Partnership Directed to the Secretariat

15.11 The Secretariat shall continue to provide its services as a key indicator partner in the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, consulting the Animals, Plants and Standing Committees where necessary, and shall report on its work in this regard at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. See: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_11.shtml

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Directed to the Animals and Plants Committees and the Secretariat

15.12 Without taking a position about the necessity for, or nature of, such a Platform, the Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees and the Secretariat shall, subject to external funding, participate in discussions concerning a possible IPBES, to provide all necessary input into the process of IPBES and to ensure that the role of CITES receives due recognition. The Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees and the Secretariat shall report to the Standing Committee to seek additional guidance.

Directed to the Secretariat 15.13 The Secretariat shall work with the United Nations Environment Programme to identify possible sources of external funding to support the participation called for in Decision 15.12.

Directed to the Standing Committee 15.14 The Standing Committee shall report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties concerning the IPBES. See: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_12-14.shtml

Climate change Directed to the Animals and Plants Committees

15.15 Given the implications of climate change for science-based decision-making, the Animals and Plants Committees shall identify the scientific aspects of the provisions of the Convention and of Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties that are actually or likely to be affected by climate change, report their findings, and make recommendations for further action in relation to the

http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_10.shtml�



7

Convention and to Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties as appropriate, at the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee.

Directed to the Secretariat 15.16 The Secretariat shall request from the secretariats of other multilateral environmental agreements information on their activities that may be linked to climate change and CITES, and report to the Animals and Plants Committees and the Standing Committee.

Directed to the Standing Committee 15.17 The Standing Committee shall consider the reports of the Animals and Plants Committees and the Secretariat and report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. See: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_15-17.shtml

10.2 Cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-10-02.pdf The document for this agenda item was submitted by the CITES Secretariat and FAO. It reported on the work that has been done to implement Decisions 14.16 and 14.17 which were adopted at CITES CoP14 and focus on the working relationship between FAO and CITES. Discussion at the meeting focused on the joint activities between FAO and CITES – see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-02.pdf. The final decision that was adopted relating to this agenda item is below and can also be found here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_18.shtml. Directed to the Standing Committee 15.18 The Standing Committee shall analyse the current Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between CITES and FAO, determine the cooperative scheme between CITES and FAO on forestry issues, and ensure that future cooperation between FAO and CITES is carried out under the framework of the MoU. 10.4 Global Strategy for Plant Conservation of the Convention on Biological Diversity Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-10-04.pdf This document was submitted by the CITES Plants Committee (PC) and refers in Annex 2 to a decision drafted at PC18 in March 2009 as follows: “The Plants Committee shall collaborate with the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and with any processes established to develop the Strategy beyond 2010, provided it is related to CITES, as well as on other issues related to flora species included in the CITES Appendices, and the Secretariat shall communicate the contributions of CITES in the context of its Memorandum of Understanding with the CBD Secretariat.” This decision 15.19 was adopted at CITES CoP15. See here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_19.shtml. 13. Cooperation between Parties and promotion of multilateral measures Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-13.pdf This document was prepared by the CITES Secretariat and the Standing Committee and focused on decisions taken at CITES CoP14 for countries to review their use of Stricter



http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-02.pdf�





8

Domestic Measures and Reservations. This document proposed retention of Decisions 14.28 and 14.30 and revisions to 14.29. Most Parties that spoke on this agenda item support the continuation of work to look at Stricter Domestic Measures. The USA did not support any further work on this issue but did support the continuation of Decision 14.30 to achieve consistency in Resolutions. Israel felt that there was too much emphasis on stricter domestic measures and that higher priority should be given to reducing the number of existing reservations. Minor amendments to Decisions 14.28, 14.29 and 14.30 were made at CITES CoP15 and direct Parties to review the effectiveness and necessity of their own stricter domestic measures and for the Secretariat to commission a report on the issue to be considered by the working group on this topic. The final decisions agreed at CoP15 are here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_28-30.shtml. 14. CITES and livelihoods Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-14.pdf IUCN and TRAFFIC participated in the working group on CITES and Livelihoods prior to CITES CoP15. The document for consideration above asked the CoP to agree on continuation of the working group to revise and finalize the toolkit for rapid assessment at the national level of the positive and negative impacts of implementing CITES listing decisions on the livelihoods of the poor, and the voluntary guidelines for Parties to address the negative impacts of implementing CITES listing decisions on the livelihoods of the poor. In addition, a number of principles were also proposed for adoption Much support existed amongst the CITES Parties for continuing this work and recognizing the importance of considering livelihoods. Brazil even called for livelihood impacts to be taken into account when listing decisions were made. IUCN made an intervention on behalf of IUCN and TRAFFIC to support continuation of the work, stating that the working group should try to ensure that the guidelines and toolkit are practical especially since they are to be voluntary tools. The Principles contained within the draft resolution were rejected but the decisions regarding continuing work on the toolkit and guidelines were adopted. The final decisions are below and also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_05-07.shtml. Directed to the Standing Committee 15.5 The Standing Committee shall continue the operation of its Working Group on CITES and Livelihoods so that it can: a) revise the draft resolution contained in Annex 1 to document CoP15 Doc. 14 and make specific recommendations at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties; b) finalize the toolkit for the rapid assessment at the national level of the positive and negative impacts of implementing CITES listing decisions on the livelihoods of the poor, in conformity with Resolution Conf. 8.3 (Rev. CoP13); c) finalize the voluntary guidelines for Parties to address the negative impacts, in order to assist Parties in developing local, national and regional initiatives that take account of the impacts of implementing CITES listing decisions on the livelihoods of the poor; and d) prepare a final version of the tools and guidelines for review and endorsement by the Standing Committee at its 62nd meeting.




9

The Working Group shall continue to work electronically through a forum available on the CITES website. If funding is available, consideration may be given to holding one or more meetings, if possible in regions more likely to be affected by the outcome. The process shall not include consideration of the criteria for amendment of the Appendices or the requirement to make non-detriment findings. 15.6 The Standing Committee shall present a report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties on the progress made with regard to the implementation of Decision 15.5. Directed to the Secretariat 15.7 On completion of the draft guidelines and toolkit by the Working Group, the Secretariat shall make the draft documents available on its website for comments by Parties, stakeholders and interested organizations, and shall invite such comments via a Notification to the Parties. The comments shall be made available to the Working Group for consideration in the development of revised draft documents to be submitted for approval at the 61st meeting of the Standing Committee. 16.2 International expert workshop on non-detriment findings Agenda documents: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-16-02-01.pdf and http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-16-02-02.pdf . Much of the discussion on capacity building at CITES CoP15 focused on non-detriment findings (NDFs) and in particular the outputs from the NDF expert workshop that took place in November of 2008. IUCN made an intervention on behalf of IUCN and TRAFFIC in the discussion encouraging further work on the development of guidance for making NDFs. Decisions were agreed for Parties to consider the NDF workshop outputs and report to the upcoming CITES Plants and Animals Committee (PC and AC) meetings in 2011 and beyond. The AC and PC shall review the workshop outputs and advise how they should be taken forward in the future. The CITES Secretariat is directed to include making of NDFs as an important part of its capacity building work. Various regional capacity building workshops were also called for. The final decisions that were taken relating to this agenda item can be found below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_23-25.shtml . Directed to Parties 15.23 Parties are encouraged: a) to consider the outputs of the International Expert Workshop on Non-Detriment Findings (Cancun, November 2008) to enhance CITES Scientific Authorities’ capacities, particularly those related to the methodologies, tools, information, expertise and other resources needed to formulate non-detriment findings ; b) taking into account Resolution Conf. 10.3, to prioritize activities such as workshops on capacity building to better understand what non-detriment findings are and how to enhance the ways to formulate them ; and c) to report their findings regarding paragraphs a) and b) above at the 25th and 26th meetings of the Animals Committee and 19th and 20th meetings of the Plants Committee.

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-16-02-01.pdf�

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-16-02-02.pdf�


10

Directed to the Directed to the Animals and Plants Committees 15.24 The Animals and Plants Committees shall: a) review feedback received from Parties on the outputs from the international expert workshop on non-detriment findings and advise on a path forward on how best to use the outputs to assist Scientific Authorities in the making of non-detriment findings; b) prepare a discussion paper for consideration at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16) with options on how to use the workshop outputs, including, if considered appropriate, a draft resolution on the establishment of non legally binding guidelines for the making of, non-detriment findings; and c) review the non-detriment finding training materials used by the CITES Secretariat when conducting regional capacity-building workshops and provide advice for their improvement; and d) taking account of the results of the International Expert Workshop on Non-detriment Findings (Cancun, November 2008) and the responses to Notification to the Parties No. 2009/023 of 8 June 2009: i) establish the mechanism for reporting from the Parties on their findings in an open and intersessional process; ii) prepare draft guidance on the making on non-detriment findings at their 25th and 19th, and 26th and 20th meetings respectively; iii) submit this draft guidance to the Secretariat to be conveyed to Parties for comment in a Notification to the Parties; and iv) review comments received from Parties and prepare revised draft guidance as a tool for making non-detriment findings for submission and consideration at CoP16. Directed to the Secretariat 15.25 The Secretariat shall: a) include non-detriment findings as a principal component of its regional capacity-building workshops; and b) use the external funds offered from interested Parties, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and other funding sources, to translate the guidelines into Arabic, Chinese and Russian and to support activities for capacity building on non-detriment findings in regional workshops. 16.3 Non-detriment findings for timber, medicinal plants and agarwood Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-16-03.pdf Two draft decisions regarding Non-detriment findings for timber, medicinal plants and agarwood were adopted. The final version of the decisions that were adopted at CITES CoP15 are found below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_26-27.shtml. Directed to Parties 15.26 Parties are invited to conduct workshops with the participation of appropriate experts on the use of timber species and Prunus africana, medicinal plants and agarwood-producing species non-detriment finding guidance in range States concerned with the cooperation of the importing Parties. Directed to the Secretariat 15.27 The Secretariat shall:



11

a) include practical elements for making non-detriment findings for these plant groups in its capacity-building workshops, in order to generate feedback from Scientific Authorities to refine the guidelines on making non-detriment findings included in document CoP15 Doc. 16.3; b) use the external funds offered from interested Parties, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and other funding sources to translate the guidelines into Arabic, Chinese and Russian and to support capacity-building workshops regionally on the use of timber species and Prunus africana, medicinal plants and agarwood-producing species non-detriment finding guidance in the range States concerned; and c) maintain the information up to date and accessible to Parties. 17. Incentives for the implementation of the Convention Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-16-03.pdf This agenda item proposed studies to identify options available for strengthening CITES, such as regulatory certification schemes and a technical workshop on payments for ecosystem services provided by CITES-listed species. Most Parties spoke against this idea and the proposed decisions in the document were rejected. The CITES Secretariat expressed frustration that the Parties were not interested in looking at “carrots” but only “sticks”. TRAFFIC intervened, on behalf of IUCN as well, offering to collaborate with the Secretariat and provide technical expertise with regard to the International Standard for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (ISSC-MAP) and other initiatives to assist with the issues outlined in the document. 18. Review of Resolutions Annex 7, Resolution Conf 10.10 (Rev CoP14), Trade in elephant specimens Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-18A07.pdf Annex 7 dealt with Resolution Conf 10.10 (Rev. CoP14) which deals with the control of internal ivory trade, and mandates the purpose and overall design of the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) programmes. The CITES Secretariat had proposed a draft decision to undertake an inter-sessional review of the need to revise the Resolution. At CITES CoP15, there was discussion of expanding consultation on review of this resolution to include range States as well as other interested parties and organizations. Additionally, the draft decision was amended to have the Standing Committee, rather than the CITES Secretariat, undertake the review. The final decision is below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_74.shtml.

Trade in elephant specimens Directed to the Standing Committee 15.74 The Standing Committee shall, in consultation with African and Asian

elephant range States and the Secretariat, evaluate the need to revise Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) and present a summary of the consultations and its proposals in this regard at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

A number of SSC members are on the Technical Advisory Groups of both MIKE and ETIS and it will be important for IUCN to monitor the progress of this review.


http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-18A07.pdf�


12

Annex 10, Resolution Conf. 12.2, Procedure for approval of externally funded projects Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-18A10.pdf It was agreed to delete Resolution Conf. 12.2. The USA supported the intent of the draft decision proposed to establish a long-term funding mechanism to support the provision of technical assistance to CITES Parties in relation to regulating wildlife but noted that there were many other ways of securing external funding which did not always require a financial mechanism. The USA suggested replacing the words “a financial mechanism” in the draft decision with “the means”. The final decision is below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_20.shtml Funding for projects related to species conservation and management Directed to the Secretariat 15.20 The Secretariat shall:

a) in cooperation with international financial institutions and potential donors, investigate possible ways to establish the means to secure funding to support the provision of technical assistance to CITES Parties in relation to regulating wildlife trade (including population studies as a basis for management programmes); and b) report its findings and recommendations at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

19. Review of Decisions Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-19.pdf IUCN’s interest in this agenda item was in relation to Bushmeat, Elephant Conservation and the Grey Parrot. 14.73 & 14.74 on Bushmeat Deletion of the unimplemented Decisions 14.73 and 14.74 on bushmeat was proposed. Cameroon, the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Liberia, Mali and Spain, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, were against deletion, citing the need for closer collaboration with other organizations on bushmeat and the desirability of maintaining the Decisions until the Bushmeat Working Group had completed its work. Additionally, Spain proposed an amendment to the last sentence of Decision 14.74 to indicate that a report was required at CoP16. Mexico asked for a clear link to be drawn between the Decisions and document CoP15 Doc. 61, the Report of the Central African Bushmeat Working Group. The decisions were maintained, with the amendment proposed by Spain. The final decision is below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_73-74.shtml. Directed to the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group 14.73 The Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group is encouraged to collaborate with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in its work and is invited to draw to the attention of the Standing Committee and/or the Conference of the Parties to any matters relating to the implementation of Resolution Conf. 13.11. 14.74 (Rev. CoP15) The Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group is encouraged to continue its work, also by collaborating with the Convention on Biological Diversity

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-18A10.pdf�




13

Liaison Group on non-timber forest resources, and to report to the Standing Committee on progress made in implementing national action plans relating to the trade in bushmeat and other initiatives it takes regarding this subject. A report on the subject of bushmeat should be submitted at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Elephant Conservation A number of decisions were retained / finalized for this agenda item relating to elephant conservation as per below. The final version of all these decisions can be found here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/13_26-14_76-79.shtml but are also listed below. Decision 13.26 (Rev. CoP15) This decision confirmed the creation of an action plan relating to elephant ivory trade. The final decision taken for this is below: 13.26 (Rev. CoP15) The Conference of the Parties adopted the Action plan for the control of trade in elephant ivory attached as Annex 2 to these Decisions. Decision 14.75 This decision relates to the African elephant action plan. There has been significant inter-sessional work done since CITES CoP14. The IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group was closely involved in helping to formulate the Strategic Framework for this plan. Elephant range States then worked together to write the detailed plan which was presented and adopted at CoP15. There was some discussion of whether MIKE and ETIS would be eligible for funding under the plan. The final result was that they will be considered eligible, but only once the EU grant underwriting the MIKE program ends at the end of 2011. Decision 14.75 has been deleted, and the reporting mandate for range States with regard to the plan has been moved to Decision 14.78. Decision 14.76 This decision is directed to Parties, IGOs and NGOs, calling on them to contribute to the African Elephant Fund (see Decision 14.79) for the implementation of the African elephant action plan and for MIKE. CITES CoP15 Parties agreed to amend this decision to include ETIS and the implementation of the action plan for control of elephant ivory trade (Decision 13.26). The final version of this decision is below: Directed to Parties, intergovernmental organizations & non-governmental organizations 14.76 Parties, trading countries, the ivory carving industry, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and other donors are called upon to contribute significantly to the African Elephant Fund for the implementation of the African elephant action plan and the programme for Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) to ensure their establishment and maintenance. Decision 14.77 This decision specified that the CITES Standing Committee should propose a decision-making mechanism for ivory trade for approval at CITES CoP16. The final version of th decision is below:

http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/13_26-14_76-79.shtml�

14

Directed to the Standing Committee 14.77 The Standing Committee, assisted by the Secretariat, shall propose for approval at the latest at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties a decision-making mechanism for a process of trade in ivory under the auspices of the Conference of the Parties. Decision 14.78 (Rev. CoP15) This decision deals with inter-sessional reporting to the 61st and 62nd meetings of the Standing Committee (2011 and 2012) by MIKE, ETIS and the IUCN/SSC African and Asian Elephant Specialist Groups. The CITES Secretariat had proposed changes to the decision which clarified that MIKE’s analysis would be subject to necessary external funding being available, but the reporting requirements from ETIS and the SSC Specialist Groups would not be subject to available funding. The reporting requirement for the African elephant range States to report on implementation of the African elephant action plan was included as an additional component of the report to the Standing Committee. Additionally, the decision was amended to ensure that all four reporting requirements (MIKE, ETIS, SSC Specialist Groups, and range States) would be subject to the availability of necessary external funding. The final decision taken for this is below: Directed to the Secretariat 14.78 (Rev. CoP15) In preparation for the 61st and 62nd meetings of the Standing Committee, pending the necessary external funding, the Secretariat shall: a) produce an updated analysis of MIKE data, pending the availability of adequate new MIKE data; b) invite TRAFFIC to submit an updated analysis of ETIS data and UNEP-WCMC to provide an overview of the latest elephant trade data; c) invite the IUCN/SSC African and Asian Elephant Specialist Groups to submit any new and relevant information on the conservation status of elephants, and on pertinent conservation actions and management strategies; and d) invite the African elephant range States to provide information on progress made in the implementation of the African elephant action plan. On the basis of the information specified above, the Secretariat shall recommend actions for consideration by the Standing Committee. Decision 14.79 (Rev. CoP15) This decision directs the CITES Secretariat to establish an African Elephant Fund and convene a Steering Committee to administer and decide on the organization of the Fund. This decision was retained and is below: Directed to the Secretariat 14.79 (Rev. CoP15) The Secretariat shall establish an African Elephant Fund that will be applied to the implementation of the African elephant action plan. The Secretariat shall establish a steering committee consisting of representatives of the range States and donors to govern the African Elephant Fund and to support and advise African elephant range States on the implementation of the Action Plan. The Steering Committee shall decide on the organization of the administration of the fund.

15

14.82 to 14.85 Grey parrot IUCN was prepared to make the following intervention on behalf of BirdLife International, however, it was not necessary as CITES Parties were generally opposed to the deletion of the decisions: “BirdLife International is strongly opposed to the deletion of Decisions pertaining to the African Grey Parrot. The BirdLife African Partners have attempted to raise funds to support the development of monitoring and capacity-building in West African countries, but have not been successful thus far. With the support of CoP15 and the CITES Secretariat, we will renew our efforts to seek funds to work with range States to develop a regional management plan and to facilitate more effective CITES implementation. We are currently in the process of developing a research proposal to help underpin the science (better understanding of ecology, population size, and monitoring protocols), which would complement a second attempt to secure funds [from the Darwin Initiative] to support capacity-building. A strong mandate from the COP to pursue these efforts would be extremely welcome.” The existing decisions relating to the African grey parrot were thus retained as per here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_82-85.shtml. 20. National laws for implementation of the Convention Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-20.pdf This document was submitted by the CITES Secretariat and focuses on CITES Parties submitting newly enacted legislation for implementation of the Convention to the CITES Secretariat. In this respect, a draft revision to Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP14) was contained in Annex 1 of the agenda document and there were further suggested draft decisions in Annex 2. The amended version of the resolution and decisions were adopted at CITES CoP15 and are here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-24.pdf and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_38-41.shtml. 21. National reports Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-21.pdf This document was submitted by the CITES Secretariat and Standing Committee and proposed revisions to Decisions 14.37 and 14.38 outlining that a working group formed at CITES CoP14 would continue investigating ways that National Reports can more efficiently incorporate information on countries’ trade activities. The final decisions relating to this agenda item can be seen here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-15.pdf and are also below. Directed to the Standing Committee 14.37 (Rev. CoP15) The Standing Committee, with the assistance of its Working Group on Special Reporting Requirements and the Secretariat, shall: a) continue its review of the recommendations to Parties to provide special reports under the Convention, assess whether they have been or might be effectively incorporated into the annual and biennial reports, and consider how the biennial report format might be revised to facilitate such incorporation; b) revise the standard biennial report format to gather information from Parties on incentive measures for implementation of the Convention, conservation measures for Appendix-I listed species and case studies on user fees;



http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-24.pdf�





16

c) by SC61 follow up on how the reporting required in the indicators for the CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013 would be undertaken and, by SC62, begin applying the indicators; and d) report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties on its conclusions and recommendations. Directed to the Secretariat 14.38 (Rev. CoP15) The Secretariat shall: a) continue to collaborate with the secretariats of other conventions, UNEP and other bodies in order to facilitate the harmonization of knowledge management and reporting; b) identify additional ways to reduce the reporting burden on Parties, inter alia, in the context of Party-led initiatives, its ongoing review of the Resolutions and Decisions of the Conference of the Parties, its support to the Standing Committee on electronic permitting and its work with partners to compile and analyze CITES- related reports; and c) report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties on the results of this work. 24. Enforcement matters Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-24.pdf This was a report by the CITES Secretariat giving an update on enforcement matters and had draft decisions regarding approaching enforcement matters in the future – e.g. the Secretariat establishing an Illegal Trade Database working group. The two draft decisions contained in the document were accepted by consensus, shown below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_42-43.shtml .

Gathering and analysis of data on illegal trade Directed to the Secretariat 15.42 The Secretariat shall establish an illegal trade database working group to: a) design and implement a database to be used by the Parties and the Secretariat for the gathering and analysis of data related to illegal trade in specimens of CITES-listed species: b) seek external funding to enable the group to conduct its activities, assisted by a relevant consultant if appropriate; and c) report to the Standing Committee at its 61st and 62nd meetings on the progress of the working group. Directed to the Standing Committee 15.43 The Standing Committee shall consider the reports of the Secretariat and also consider: a) endorsing any relevant recommendation or measure that could be implemented prior to the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16); or b) requesting the Secretariat to prepare a report for consideration at CoP16.



17

26. Review of Significant Trade in specimens of Appendix-II plant species Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-26.pdf Two draft decisions regarding Cistanche deserticola, Dioscorea deltoidea, Nardostachys grandiflora, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Pterocarpus santalinus, Rauvolfia serpentina and Taxus wallichiana were accepted by consensus, as per below and here: Directed to the range States of Cistanche deserticola, Dioscorea deltoidea, Nardostachys grandiflora, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Pterocarpus santalinus, Rauvolfia serpentina and Taxus wallichiana, to the regional representatives for Asia on the Plants Committee and to the Secretariat 15.36 The bodies to which this Decision is directed should ensure the implementation of regionally coordinated actions to improve the management of the seven species and ensure that the trade therein is legal, sustainable and traceable. These measures could include, inter alia, the organization of regional capacity-building workshops, the improvement of methodologies to make non-detriment findings and to determine legal acquisition, the harmonization of management and compliance measures, and the development of incentives to prevent illegal trade. Directed to the Secretariat 15.37 The Secretariat shall: a) subject to the availability of external funding and in collaboration with the range States, the regional representatives for Asia on the Plants Committee, the World Health Organization, traditional medicine associations and TRAFFIC, organize one or several regional capacity-building workshops, on the basis, inter alia, of the recommendations in document PC17 Inf. 10; and b) inform the Plants Committee on progress made at its 20th meeting. 27. Introduction from the sea Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-27.pdf An inter-sessional working group on Introduction from the Sea (IFS) worked between CITES CoP14 and CoP15 on a rolling text to define new aspects of IFS and establish a uniform understanding and application of it within CITES. At CoP15, the working group discussed document 27 which focused on proposed revisions to Resolution Conf. 14.6 (the resolution adopted at CoP14 that defines the phrase ‘marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State’) and Decision 14.48 which directs the work of the Standing Committee in furthering IFS discussions, particularly the issue of whether “state of introduction” should be port or flag state. A revised document focusing on Resolution Conf. 14.6 and Decision 14.48 was created by the working group at CoP15 and this was adopted. The issue of flag state versus port state as the “state of introduction” was discussed but not resolved at the meeting – more detail on these discussions are here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec13.pdf . IUCN included the issue of Introduction from the Sea in its marine briefing paper which was circulated to all CITES Parties and advised on flag state being the “state of introduction” as well as other aspects of ‘Introduction from the Sea’. The final decisions that were taken on Introduction from the Sea at CITES CoP15 can be seen below and also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_50-14_48.shtml and the final changes to Resolution Conf. 14.6 are here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-35.pdf.



http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec13.pdf�

http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_50-14_48.shtml�


18

Directed to the Standing Committee 14.48 (Rev. CoP15) The Standing Committee shall: a) extend operation of the Working Group on Introduction from the Sea, established at SC57, with the understanding that it shall continue to work primarily through electronic means, to consider a definition for ‘transportation into a State’ , clarification of the term ‘State of introduction’ and the process for issuing a certificate of introduction from the sea as well as other issues identified for further consideration in the final report of the CITES Workshop on Introduction from the Sea Issues (Geneva, 30 November – 2 December 2005) and the final report of the meeting of the working group held in Geneva from 14 to 16 September 2009; b) include in the working group representatives of CITES authorities and fishery authorities from each of the six CITES regions and request the participation of and input from the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, regional fishery bodies, the fishing industry, and intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations with CITES and fishery expertise; and c) ask the working group to prepare a discussion paper and draft revised resolution for consideration by the Standing Committee at its 62nd meeting and for consideration at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Directed to the Secretariat 15.50 The Secretariat shall, contingent on the availability of external funding, convene two meeting s of the working group before the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee. 28. Ranching and trade in ranched specimens Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-28.pdf The CITES Secretariat highlighted in this document that the requirements outlined in paragraph A.2 (d) of Annex 4 to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14), regarding transfers from Appendix I to Appendix II under the ranching criteria, were more restrictive than that required for non-ranching transfer proposals. The matter was referred to a working group, to be considered concurrently with the agenda item 29 on production systems. IUCN and the Crocodile Specialist Group made an intervention on this agenda item, stating that “The integrity of the two ranching resolutions could be retained by incorporating them more fully into Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14), or by retaining them as freestanding resolutions that need to be followed in conjunction with Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14)”. They also stated “The editorial amendments proposed in Annex 2 improve the logic and structure of Resolution Conf 11.16 (Rev. CoP14) and should therefore be adopted together with the new definition of the term “ranching” (see CoP15 Doc. 29).” The editorial changes to Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP14) that were proposed by the CITES Secretariat (see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-28.pdf, Annex 3) were accepted. These changes clarified the clauses applicable to “proposals to transfer populations from Appendix I to Appendix II for ranching” and the clauses applicable to “changes to the ranching programme described in the proposal to transfer a species from



19

Appendix I to Appendix II”. CITES CoP15 also adopted several decisions, as per below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_51.shtml. Directed to the Animals Committee 15.51 The Animals Committee shall: a) evaluate the merit of reinstating the ability to transfer suitably qualified populations

that continue to meet the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15) Annex 1 from Appendix I to Appendix II pursuant to Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) or Resolution Conf. 9.20 (Rev.); and

b) if merit is found, draft a revision of the terms of paragraph A. 2 in Annex 4 of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15) to eliminate the requirement that downlisting proposals pursuant to Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP15) or Resolution Conf. 9.20 (Rev.) must also meet the criteria in Annex 1 of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP15)1.

29. Production systems for specimens of CITES-listed species

Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-29.pdf CITES CoP15 accepted the proposed definition of the term ‘ranching’ (“means the rearing in a controlled environment of animals taken as eggs or juveniles from the wild, where they would otherwise have had a very low probability of surviving to adulthood”), and its inclusion in Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP14) (ranching). The final decision that was agreed upon at CITES CoP15 is below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_52-53.shtml. Directed to the Secretariat 15.52 The Secretariat shall: a) contingent on the availability of external funds, contract an appropriate expert to

prepare a guide to advise the Parties on the appropriate use of source codes; b) provide a draft of this guide to the Animals and Plants Committees for review and

comment; and c) prepare and distribute the final product, incorporating the feedback of the Animals

and Plants Committees, to inform the Parties on the appropriate use of source codes. Directed to the Animals and Plants Committees 15.53 The Animals and Plants Committees shall review and provide feedback to the

Secretariat on the draft guide to advise the Parties on the appropriate use of source codes.

30. Electronic permitting Agenda documents: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-30-01.pdf and http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-30-02.pdf The CITES Animals and Plants Committees were directed to review and provide feedback to the CITES Secretariat on the draft guide to advise the Parties on the appropriate use of source codes. The Chairman of Committee II informed delegates that three draft resolutions had been accepted which:

(a) encouraged Parties to use the CITES Electronic Permitting toolkit;






20

(b) directed the Standing Committee to extend the mandate of its working group on Information technologies and Electronics Systems; and

(c) directed the Secretariat, in collaboration with the working group, and subject to external funding, to update the electronic toolkit and work with international organizations and initiatives related to electronic permitting.

The final and full decisions that were adopted at CITES CoP15 on electronic permitting can be seen here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_54-56.shtml and amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP14) here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-41.pdf. 31. Purpose codes on CITES permits and certificates Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-31.pdf CITES CoP15 agreed to extend the Terms of Reference for the working group on CITES permits and certificates as per here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_54.shtml and below:

Directed to the Standing Committee 14.54 (Rev. CoP15) The Standing Committee shall re-establish an intersessional joint working group to review the use of purpose-of-transaction codes by Parties, with the following terms of reference: a) the working group shall be composed of Parties from as many of the six CITES regions as possible, and appropriate intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, with expertise in the issuance of CITES documents and use of purpose-of-transaction codes for evaluation within the permit issuance process and trade data analysis; b) the working group shall, communicating through electronic media, focus on clearly defining purpose-of-transaction codes to encourage their consistent use, and consider the possible elimination of current codes or the inclusion of new ones; c) in evaluating the use and definition of purpose-of-transaction codes, the working group should take into account any difficulties of implementation by Parties and the potential resource implications of inclusion of any new codes or deletion of current purpose-of-transaction codes; and d) the working group should submit a report and any recommendations for amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP15), or to any revision thereof, at the 62nd meeting of the Standing Committee, which shall report, with its recommendations, at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 32. E-commerce of specimens of CITES-listed species Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-32.pdf The CITES Secretariat submitted this document which focused on enabling a better understanding of the extent of legal and illegal commerce conducted over the internet and, in it, recommended that the Conference of the Parties adopt draft decisions in Annex 1 and draft amendments to Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP14) in Annex 2. The draft decisions were adopted as is (see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-32.pdf) and amendments to Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP14) were accepted as follows: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-28.pdf.









21

34. Review of the universal tagging system and trade in small crocodilian leather goods Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-34.pdf This document was prepared by the CITES Secretariat and proposed a number of revisions to Resolution Conf. 11.12 and Resolution Conf. 12.3. Revisions to Resolution Conf. 11.12 were proposed to align the Universal Tagging System with current knowledge of crocodilian taxonomy, conservation and trade practice, and to streamline the tagging system while maintaining a robust and secure trade control regime. Revisions proposed to Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP14) on Permits and Certificates comprised two additions to Part IX Regarding permits and certificates for crocodilian specimens and were intended to encourage Parties to streamline and alleviate the administrative burden of permitting procedures for small crocodilian leather products. The proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 11.12 in Annex 1 of the original agenda document (see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-34.pdf) were adopted as is. Specifically, the amended clauses included, inter alia: b) that crocodilian skins, flanks and chalecos be individually tagged before export; c) that the non-reusable tags include, as a minimum: the ISO two-letter code for the country of origin; a unique serial identification number; a standard species code (as provided in Annex 1); and, where appropriate, the year of skin production or harvest, in accordance with the provisions of Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Rev. CoP14)1, adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its 11th meeting (Gigiri, 2000) and amended at its 14th meeting (The Hague, 2007); and further, that such tags have as a minimum the following characteristics: a tamper-resistant, self-locking mechanism, heat resistance, inertia to chemical and mechanical processing, and alphanumeric information, which may include bar-coding, applied by permanent stamping; d) the year of skin production or harvest and serial number be separated with a hyphen (-) where the information on tags appears in the sequence: country of origin, year of skin production or harvest, serial number, species code; f) tails, throats, feet, backstrips, and other parts be exported in transparent, sealed containers clearly marked with a non-reusable tag or label together with a description of the content and total weight, and all the information required for tags for individual skins, flanks and chalecos, as outlined in paragraphs c), d) and e); i) where the original tags have been lost, damaged, or removed from raw, tanned, and/or finished skins, and flanks and chalecos, the country of re-export should tag each such skins, or flanks or chalecos prior to re-export, with a 're-export tag' meeting all the requirements of paragraph c) above except that the country of origin and standard species codes and years of skin production and/or harvest will not be required; and further, that the same information as is on these tags should be given on the re-export certificate together with details of the original permit under which the skins, flanks and chalecos were imported. Amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.3 were also adopted as per below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-41.pdf.

a) When trade in tagged crocodilian skins is authorized, the same information on the tags




22

is to be given on the permit or certificate. b) In the case of crocodilian species subject to quotas approved by the CoP, no permit or certificate for skins should be issued before the skins are tagged in accordance with the requirements of the issuing Management Authority and their sizes are recorded. c) In the event of mis-matches of information within a permit or certificate for crocodilian skins, the Management Authority of the importing Party should immediately contact its counterpart in the exporting/reexporting Party to establish whether this was a genuine error arising from the volume of information required by Resolution Conf. 12.3 and Resolution Conf. 11.12, and that, if this is the case, every effort be made to avoid penalizing those involved in the transaction. d) For small crocodilian leather products, Parties consider measures to alleviate the administrative burdens associated with this trade through simplified procedures to issue permits and certificates as provided in Part XII of this Resolution Conf. 12.3. e) For small crocodilian leather products, Parties that require import permits as a stricter domestic measure should review these requirements in order to determine whether they are effective in achieving the objectives of the Convention to ensure that trade in wild fauna and flora species is not detrimental to their survival. 35. Standard nomenclature Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-35.pdf CITES nomenclature completed its regular progress of updating Standard References, commissioning standard Checklists, and continuing its background work of literature compilation and evaluation. Noteworthy is a Decision to the Animals and Plants Committees (specifically, their nomenclature specialists) as per below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec12.pdf. “The Animals and Plants Committee shall conduct an analysis to identify taxa listed in the Appendices that can be included under the name of a higher taxon without altering the scope of the listing, to be consistent with the section on “Higher taxa” in Annex 3 of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14), and where appropriate prepare proposals for submission to the Conference of the Parties by the Depositary Government." This may result in a substantial number (possibly several dozen) of one-page proposals for CoP16 and beyond. 36. Identification of CITES-listed corals in trade Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-36.pdf The USA submitted a document which outlined the need for standard nomenclature of CITES-listed coral species. The document drew attention to the fact that coral taxonomy has changed since 2003, leaving CITES lists outdated and needing revision. In particular, the list of taxa identifiable to the genus level needs to be updated. The decision proposed in the document and as edited by the Secretariat was adopted by the Parties, as follows: Directed to the Animals Committee 15.64 The Animals Committee shall: a) identify existing coral reference materials that could be adopted as standard nomenclatural references for CITES-listed corals; and


http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec12.pdf�


23

b) update its list of coral taxa for which identification to genus level is acceptable, but which should be identified to species level where feasible, and provide the updated list to the Secretariat for dissemination. Directed to the Secretariat 15.65 The Secretariat shall, upon receiving the updated list from the Animals Committee, transmit this information to the Parties through a Notification to the Parties, and by publishing the list on the CITES website. 37. Identification of worked specimens of black coral (Antipatharia) and parts thereof in trade Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-37.pdf Sweden, on behalf of the EU, submitted a document regarding the need for better identification methods of black coral. Proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.3 were suggested in Annex A of the document and were adopted by the Parties, as per here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-37.pdf. In addition, a decision was made as per below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_66.shtml. Directed to the Secretariat 15.66 The Secretariat shall, subject to the availability of external funds, commission the development of guidance on the identification of worked specimens of black coral (Antipatharia) in trade at species, genus and higher taxonomic level. 40. Personal and household effects Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-40.pdf At CITES CoP15, the CITES Standing Committee was directed to extend the operation of its working group on Personal and Household Effects until CoP16 through amendments to Decision 14.64 in the Annex to the document (see below and also: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-40.pdf). Directed to the Standing Committee 14.64 The Standing Committee shall extend the operation of its Working Group on Personal and Household Effects until the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16) and oversee the Group’s work in fulfilling the following terms of reference: a) clarify the relationship between 'tourist souvenirs', ‘hunting trophies’ and 'personal and household effects'; b) clarify the interpretation of Article VII, paragraph 3 (b), of the Convention; c) assess whether there are specific species or types of personal or household effects which, in view of conservation concerns, would require different treatment under Resolution Conf. 13.7 (Rev. CoP14); d) collate information about how each Party has implemented Resolution Conf. 13.7 (Rev. CoP14), particularly with regard to requirements for export permits, and assess whether this indicates the need to amend the Resolution; and e) report at each regular meeting of the Standing Committee until CoP16 and at CoP16.






24

41. Applications to register operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes Agenda documents: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/index.shtml The documents for this agenda item deal with the application of Birds International Inc. to breed various bird species that are on CITES Appendix I (e.g. various South American parrot species) for commercial purposes. The Philippines’ applications were dealt with separately for each species - some were withdrawn and all others were rejected. For more discussion on the agenda item see here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-04.pdf. Agenda items 41.3, 41.4, 41.5 focused on requests from the USA to include three commercial falcon-breeding operations in the Secretariat’s Register and this was agreed. 42. Great apes Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-42.pdf The document for this agenda item was prepared by the CITES Secretariat and proposed the Secretariat to fund and undertake technical missions to gorilla range states in the interest of developing a report and recommendations for great ape conservation to be considered at CITES CoP16. The two draft decisions relating to this were adopted by consensus as per below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_44-45.shtml. Liberia made a comment regarding this document and the decisions only being focused on gorillas and said that the chimpanzees are also important to consider – this was noted but the decisions were not changed. After CoP15, the CITES Secretariat confirmed in writing that chimpanzees would likely be included in the focus of the missions to the gorilla-range states, as follows: “Since chimpanzee and gorilla range States often overlap (or are one and the same), the technical missions will undoubtedly have an opportunity to examine illegal trade in both species. Indeed, illegal trade in general will probably be taken into account.” Directed to the Secretariat 15.44 The Secretariat shall seek external funding to undertake, in conjunction with GRASP, ICPO-INTERPOL and the World Customs Organization, technical missions to a limited number of gorilla range States. The Secretariat shall report to the Standing Committee on the outcome of the missions. Directed to the Standing Committee 15.45 The Standing Committee shall consider the report of the Secretariat and also consider: a) endorsing any relevant recommendation or measure that could be implemented prior to the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16); and b) requesting the Secretariat to prepare a report for consideration at CoP16. 43. Asian Big Cats 43.1 Report of the Secretariat Agenda documents: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-43-01.pdf and http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-43-01-Addendum.pdf This document was a general report from the CITES Secretariat on progress relating to Asian Big Cat (ABC) issues and it invited discussion of ways that management of ABC issues could be improved. There was an addendum to the document that had a number of

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/index.shtml�






http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-43-01-Addendum.pdf�

25

draft decisions directed to the Parties, Secretariat and Standing Committee which were adopted at CoP15. The final decisions that were adopted for this agenda item are below and also on the CITES website here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_46-49.shtml. To have more details on the discussion behind this agenda item, see: page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec07.pdf. Directed to the Parties, especially tiger range States 15.46 All Parties, but particularly tiger range States, should submit, by 30 June 2010, information relating to incidents of poaching of and illegal trade in tigers that have occurred within their territory since the beginning of 2007. Information should be submitted using the Ecomessage format distributed in Notification to the Parties No. 2009/028 of 22 July 2009. Ecomessage forms for each incident should be submitted to the CITES Secretariat or to the General Secretariat of ICPO-INTERPOL via INTERPOL National Central Bureaus. Directed to the Secretariat 15.47 The Secretariat shall collaborate with ICPO-INTERPOL to undertake an analysis of the information received from Parties. Two reports, one for public consumption and the other solely for the law enforcement community, should be prepared. The public document will be posted on the CITES website, whilst the other will be circulated in a restricted fashion to relevant enforcement agencies. The Secretariat shall report on this matter at the 61st meeting of the Standing Committee and make any relevant recommendations as a result of the analysis. 15.48 The Secretariat shall seek funds to convene, as soon as possible, a seminar involving senior-level Customs and police officers from tiger range States, to brief them on the threatened status of this species, particularly the impact wildlife crime has upon it. The officials shall also be briefed by the Secretariat regarding the Global Tiger Summit, planned under the Global Tiger Initiative, so that the law enforcement community throughout tiger range States is prepared to engage in efforts to safeguard this species and respond to measures adopted at the Summit. The Secretariat shall collaborate with ICPO-INTERPOL, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Customs Organization in preparing the seminar. The Secretariat shall report on the outcomes of the seminar at the 61st meeting of the Standing Committee. Directed to the Standing Committee 15.49 At its 61st meeting, the Standing Committee shall consider the report of the Secretariat and determine what actions are necessary as a result of the analysis and the seminar. This could include instructing the Secretariat to convene the CITES Tiger Enforcement Task Force or CITES Enforcement Expert Group to consider further action. 43.2 Proposed revision of Resolution Conf. 12.5 on Conservation of and trade in tigers and other Appendix-I Asian big cat species Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-43-02.pdf Sweden on behalf of the EU submitted this document which focused on strengthening and improving the implementation of conservation measures for tigers and other Asian big cats through amendments to Resolution Conf 12.5 (Rev. CoP14). China did not agree





26

with species-specific compliance measures being in the document so the amendments to Resolutions Conf. 12.5 were only agreed after that aspect was excluded. Changes were also made to Annexes 1-3 of the amended Resolution. The final text of Resolution Conf. 12.5 and a related decision is here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-31.pdf. For more discussion, see: page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec07.pdf, page 1 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec08.pdf and page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec10.pdf. 44. Elephants Agenda documents: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-44-01.pdf, http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/doc/E15-44-01A.pdf and http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-44-02.pdf. Three documents were presented at CITES CoP15. These were:

- 44.1 Monitoring of illegal trade in ivory and other elephant specimens; - 44.1 Annex: Report submitted by ETIS; and - 44.2 Monitoring of illegal hunting in elephant range States.

Doc 44.1 was presented by the CITES Secretariat while the Annex on the “Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS)” analysis was presented by Tom Milliken (TRAFFIC). Document 44.2, the analysis of the “Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)” initiative, was presented by Tom de Meulenaer (MIKE Coordinator). The Chair of the Committee at CITES CoP15 which dealt with this agenda item allowed for brief discussion on the three documents and also invited other general comments on elephants at the time. The responses to the MIKE analysis were very positive, with a number of countries intervening in support of MIKE, although some concern was expressed about the conclusions of the MIKE analysis, particularly that there was no clear relationship between illegal killing and CITES decisions. Concern was also expressed regarding the implementation of Decision 13.26. Overall, however, support for MIKE and ETIS was reaffirmed by the meeting. IUCN and the African Elephant Specialist Group made an overall intervention aimed at encouraging Parties to collaborate with one another when developing solutions for conservation of elephants within the remit of CITES and also recommending stepping back from the debate and looking at the bigger picture for elephants. Regarding agenda item 44.1, a revision of Decision 13.26 (Rev. CoP14) concerning the Action plan for the control of trade in African elephant ivory and a revision of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP14) on Trade in elephant specimens were both adopted. The revised text can be found here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-I-18.pdf and also below. See also agenda item 19 on Review of Decisions in this document. The document for agenda item 44.2 was noted. To read the discussion that took place on this agenda item, see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec11.pdf.









http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/doc/E15-44-01A.pdf�


http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-I-18.pdf�


27

Directed to the Standing Committee 15.74 The Standing Committee shall, in consultation with African and Asian elephant range States and the Secretariat, evaluate the need to revise Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) and present a summary of the consultations and its proposals in this regard at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 45. Rhinoceroses 45.1 Report of the Secretariat (& Annex TRAFFIC/IUCN status update document) Agenda documents: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-45-01.pdf and http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-45-01-Addendum.pdf and http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-45-01A.pdf. This document reviewed current issues relating to the increase in the illegal trade of rhino horns and corresponding responses by Parties. One of the documents was the report that IUCN and TRAFFIC had been commissioned to produce on the status, conservation and trade of African and Asian rhinoceroses. IUCN and the African Rhinoceros Specialist Group made an intervention at CITES CoP15, confirming the need for greater sharing of law enforcement information and communicating that within Africa, a joint Rhino and Elephant Security Group/Interpol Sub-Regional Environmental Crime Working Group (RESG/Interpol ECWG) has been meeting regularly (twice a year). These meetings have facilitated the sharing of information between wildlife investigators and specialized police units working to investigate and combat rhino (and elephant) crime. The CITES Secretariat proposed a number of draft decisions in response to the information found in the documents for this agenda item. These were amended and adopted as per below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_71-73.shtml. For more information on the discussions that took place on this agenda item, see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec08.pdf. Directed to the Secretariat 15.71 The Secretariat shall: a) examine the implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP15) in those range States where illegal killing of rhinoceros poses a significant threat to populations of rhinoceros, particularly Zimbabwe and South Africa; b) examine progress with regards to curtailing illegal trade in rhinoceros parts and derivatives by implicated States, particularly Viet Nam; and c) report on the implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev CoP15) at the 61st, 62nd and 63rd meetings of the Standing Committee. 15.72 The Secretariat shall: a) facilitate, as a matter of urgency, and with others partners as appropriate, bilateral exchanges between key rhinoceros range States and rhinoceros horn consumer States, to improve wildlife enforcement cooperation efforts; b) report at the 61st and 62nd meetings of the Standing Committee (SC61 and SC62) on these efforts; c) seek funds to convene a joint CITES Ivory and Rhinoceros Enforcement Task Force. Besides the Secretariat, members should include the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network Programme Coordination Unit, INTERPOL, the Lusaka Agreement Task Force,


http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-45-01-Addendum.pdf�

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-45-01A.pdf�



28

the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Customs Organization and those Parties in Africa and Asia that are currently most affected by the smuggling of ivory and rhinoceros specimens. Priority should be given to including the following Parties: Cameroon, China, Ethiopia, Kenya, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mozambique, Nepal, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. The Task Force should undertake an exchange of intelligence regarding smuggling of ivory and rhinoceros specimens and develop strategies for combating illegal trade; and d) report on the work of the Task Force at SC61. Directed to the Standing Committee 15.73 At its 61st and 62nd meetings, the Standing Committee shall consider the reports of the Secretariat requested under Decision 15.72 and determine what further actions, if any, are necessary. 45.2 Revision of Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) on Conservation of and trade in African and Asian rhinoceroses Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-45-02.pdf This document was submitted by Kenya and proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 9.14 to address the illegal trade of rhino horns, specifically that there should be more defined roles for the range and consumer States as well as the CITES Standing Committee. Decision 15.71 as discussed above in agenda item 45.1 was adopted. Also adopted were revisions to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP14) as per this document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-29.pdf. For the discussions that took place on this agenda item, see page 3 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec08.pdf, page 1 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec10.pdf and page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec12.pdf. 46. Tibetan antelope Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-46.pdf The document for this agenda item was submitted by the CITES Secretariat and reported on the Standing Committee’s 2008 and 2009 review of enforcement measures taken by Parties to eliminate illicit trade in Tibetan antelope products. The agenda item document contained draft decisions which proposed that the CITES Secretariat undertake a technical and political mission to India / Jammu / Kashmir to study ways to halt trade and communicate this information at CITES CoP16. This proposal was rejected by India which explained that the species is subject to the highest level of protection, both nationally and in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. India stated that all holders of wool and shawls have recently been obliged to register their stocks and that, while some illegal trade is still taking place, the country is taking all possible measures to control this trade. The Secretariat withdrew its draft decisions on this topic given India’s comments. 47. Saiga antelope Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-47.pdf The CITES Secretariat submitted the document for this agenda item which proposed a number of draft decisions which focused on Range States demonstrating implementation









29

of the five-year work programme for Saiga antelope. These decisions were adopted and are both below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_91-93-97.shtml Directed to the range States of the Saiga antelope (Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) and to China as a former range State 14.91 All range States of Saiga tatarica should fully implement the measures directed to them that are contained in the Medium-Term International Work Programme for the saiga antelope (2007-2011), developed in support of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concerning ‘Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of the Saiga Antelope (Saiga tatarica tatarica)’ and its Saiga Action Plan. 14.93 (Rev. CoP15) All range States of Saiga tatarica should provide information on the measures and activities they undertook to implement the Medium-Term International Work Programme for the saiga antelope (2007-2011) in their biennial reports for the period 2009-2010. Directed to States that are important consumer and trading countries of saiga parts and derivatives 14.94 (Rev. CoP15) Important consumer and trading States of saiga parts and derivatives are encouraged to collaborate in managing and controlling tr a de in saiga antelope, and should take into consideration the recommendations formulated in Trade in saiga antelope horns and other parts: an overview of recent global trade trends and conservation aspects with a focus on market demand in Southeast Asia (Annex 6 to document CoP14 Doc. 56), particularly those relating to: a) the development of coherent policies and procedures for the disposal of confiscated saiga parts and derivatives; b) the registration and marking of saiga parts and derivatives that are kept in government or private ownership, regular monitoring of such stockpiles, and the adoption of a labelling system for products containing saiga specimens; and c) the reduction of the overall consumption of saiga parts and derivatives in close cooperation with medicine manufacturers and communities using traditional Asian medicine, e.g. by restricting the varieties of patent medicines that are allowed to contain saiga horn, researching and promoting appropriate substitutes for the saiga horn, and confining the prescription of medicines containing saiga horn to the most essential treatments. 14.95 (Rev. CoP15) Important consumer and trading States of saiga parts and derivatives should provide information on their implementation of Decision 14.95 (Rev. CoP15) in their biennial reports for the period 2009-2010. Directed to the Parties and others 14.96 Donor Parties, aid agencies, businesses using and producing saiga products, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations are urged to assist all range States and consumer countries in any way possible with the conservation of the saiga antelope, particularly by focusing funding, resources and expertise on the measures

http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_91-93-97.shtml�

30

specified in the Medium-Term International Work Programme for the saiga antelope (2007-2011), developed in support of the Memorandum of Understanding concerning 'Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of the Saiga Antelope (Saiga tatarica tatarica)' and its Saiga Action Plan. Directed to the Secretariat 14.97 (Rev. CoP15) The Secretariat shall: a) cooperate with the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals on issues pertaining to the saiga antelope, including: i) the implementation of the Medium-Term International Work Programme for the Saiga antelope (2007-2011); ii) the organization of the second meeting of the signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding concerning 'Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of the Saiga Antelope (Saiga tatarica tatarica)', scheduled to take place in 2010; iii) facilitating collaboration between the range States of the saiga antelope and major consumer Parties; and iv) securing support for implementing the Medium-Term International Work Programme inter alia by exploring possibilities to establish an enabling mechanism to use funds from the traditional Asian medicine industry for in situ conservation of the saiga antelope; and b) report on the implementation of Decisions 14.91 and 14.93 (Rev. CoP15) to 14.97 (Rev. CoP15)2, including a written summary of the information contained in biennial reports from relevant Parties, for consideration at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, and recommend appropriate actions. 48. Snake trade and conservation management Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-48.pdf The Parties to CITES unanimously adopted the call at CoP15 for a workshop on Asian snake trade to be held within the next 12 months, and its findings to be deliberated by the Animals and Standing Committees. With funding already earmarked by the USA, this looks certain to happen. This sets snake trade on the path, previously trodden by turtles (Kunming, 2002) and seahorses, towards increased regulatory attention and oversight. The final decisions are here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_75-78.shtml. 49. Tortoises and freshwater turtles Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-49.pdf At CITES CoP15, the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group’s (TFTSG) report (Inf. 22, see: http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/inf/E15i-22.pdf), analyzing the effects of CITES measures on Asian turtle trade and conservation, was welcomed without dissent and has been directed to the Animals and Standing Committees for review and follow-up measures. An urgent call was reiterated for CITES Parties to develop harmonized customs codes for turtles and turtle products and Parties were also encouraged to review and improve their domestic and international trade regulations regarding Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles and to report their progress in Biennial Reports. The final decisions that were made on this agenda item can be found here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_79-83.shtml.




http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/inf/E15i-22.pdf�


31

50. Hawksbill turtle Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-50.pdf In this agenda item document, the Inter-American Convention (IAC) on the protection and conservation of sea turtles reported on a regional hawksbill turtle workshop which took place in the Caribbean and western Atlantic regions. The workshop concluded, and the CITES Secretariat supported, a decision for a joint proposal to be developed and submitted by the GEF which would consider the outcome of this regional workshop within the wider Caribbean and western Atlantic region. This draft decision was agreed upon at in Committee I at CITES CoP15 but St. Lucia made an intervention later in plenary stating that the report had not been circulated to workshop participants and Parties prior to its presentation at CoP15. St. Lucia thus proposed a new decision which was adopted, below and also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_84.shtml. Directed to the Secretariat 15.84 The Secretariat shall collaborate with the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC), the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean region (Cartagena Convention) and its Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol), and range States in the wider Caribbean and the Western Atlantic region to: a) finalize the report of the regional workshop, allowing for feedback from participants and their national turtle management agencies, as well as range States of the region; and b) explore opportunities for cooperation, including development of joint proposals to donors, considering the final report of the regional workshop on hawksbill turtles.

51. Humphead wrasse: additional management measures needed to combat Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-51.pdf Indonesia submitted this document to CITES CoP15 which addressed issues relating to the implementation of Appendix II measures for Humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulates) and included proposals for management of trade, particularly through air shipment rather than by sea. IUCN and the Groupers and Wrasses Specialist Group, which had been instrumental in working with Indonesia to draft the agenda item and draft decisions for consideration, made an intervention during the meeting stating that shipments by sea can be an impediment for resolving IUU fishing of humphead wrasse and identified air transport and the establishment of bilateral agreements between trading countries as important actions to resolve this. A working group discussed and revised the proposed decisions which were adopted by the Parties in plenary. The final adopted decisions are below and also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_86-88.shtml. Directed to Parties 15.86 All Parties are urged to: a) consider adopting appropriate stricter domestic measures under the remit of the legislation of the Party, including limiting the international trade in humphead wrasse to be conducted by air only, to strengthen the control and enforcement of the Appendix-II listing for the species;





32

b) improve monitoring of trade in humphead wrasse, especially through inspections of boxes of mixed live reef fish by exporting, re-exporting and importing countries; c) exchange law enforcement information of relevance to humphead wrasse with other relevant Parties, and regularly compile and forward to the Secretariat for distribution a comprehensive summary of Convention violations for the species; d) increase awareness of the CITES listing for humphead wrasse, including by improving identification capacity among law enforcement officers through the use of training and educational materials; e) facilitate discussion on practicable and acceptable options for action to be taken in case of illegally imported/confiscated live fish; and f) provide information to the Secretariat on actions taken to implement this Decision, in order to inform the work of the Humphead Wrasse Working Group to be established by the Standing Committee pursuant to Decision 15.87. Directed to the Standing Committee 15.87 The Standing Committee shall, contingent on the availability of external funding, establish a Humphead Wrasse Working Group, which is to: a) review the actions taken by relevant Parties to implement this decision; b) develop and recommend to the Standing Committee further options for improving control and enforcement in relation to the international trade in humphead wrasse, and ensuring the effectiveness of the Appendix-II listing of the species; and c) report back and recommend appropriate follow-up actions at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to support this initiative. Directed to the Secretariat 15.88 The Secretariat is requested: a) to assist Parties in the capacity-building activities outlined in paragraph d) of Decision 15.86; and b) where necessary, to provide assistance or advice to Parties to address the handling of confiscated live humphead wrasse. For more information on the discussions that took place on this agenda item, see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec11.pdf and page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec14.pdf. 52. Atlantic bluefin tuna Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-52.pdf Discussions on Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) were prominent at the CITES CoP15 meeting, both relating to the agenda item and Monaco’s proposal to put the species on Appendix I. The document for this agenda item was submitted by Monaco in case an Appendix I listing was adopted – it contained a draft resolution and draft decisions. The proposal to include Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix I was rejected by a vote however and so document 52 was then withdrawn. For more information on the discussion that took place regarding the proposal to put the species on Appendix I, see: page 1, discussion of proposal of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec08.pdf, page 5 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec10.pdf and pages 3 and 4 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-06.pdf.








33

53. Conservation and management of sharks and stingrays Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-53.pdf The document for this agenda item was prepared by the CITES Animals Committee (AC) and was a report of the activities that the AC has been doing to implement the 17 Decisions (14.101 to 14.117) that were taken at CITES CoP14 on shark conservation. The document contained draft decisions and proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.6 as well as recommendations on such topics as freshwater stingrays, monitoring and reporting, as well as linkages between international trade in shark fins, meat and IUU fishing. Parties first rejected the document by vote in Committee I at CoP15 but later agreed in plenary to implement the recommendations and decisions relating to freshwater stingrays. Also in plenary, New Zealand asked for consideration of its information document (CoP15 Inf. 70, see: http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/inf/C15i-70.pdf) which proposed further amendments to the draft decisions and changes to Resolution Conf. 12.6 in document 53, particularly regarding the removal of species lists and inclusion of clauses referring to greater capacity-building for sharks. These amendments were also adopted by the Parties in the plenary. The final version of the decision that was adopted on stingrays at CITES CoP15 is below and also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_85.shtml. Directed to range States of species in the family Potamotrygonidae (South American freshwater stingrays) 15.85 Range States of species in the family Potamotrygonidae are encouraged to: a) note the findings and conclusions of the freshwater stingrays workshop (document AC24 Doc. 14.2), and increase their efforts to improve data collection on the scale and impact of the threats facing stingray species and populations from collection for ornamental trade, commercial fisheries for food and habitat damage; b) consider implementing or reinforcing national regulations regarding the management and reporting of capture and international trade of freshwater stingrays for all purposes, including commercial fisheries for food and ornamental trade, and standardizing these measures across the region, for example through existing South American intergovernmental bodies; and c) consider the listing of endemic and threatened species of freshwater stingrays (Potamotrygonidae) in CITES Appendix III as needing the cooperation of other Parties in the control of trade. All proposals to put shark on the CITES Appendices (proposals #15 to 18) at CoP15 were rejected (note: the porbeagle proposal was accepted in Committee I but later rejected in plenary). IUCN and the SSC Shark Specialist Group made an intervention regarding Sphyrna lewini, reinforcing the threat status of Scalloped Hammerhead sharks and confirming that their biological criteria meet the threshold for inclusion in CITES Appendix II. More information on the discussions relating to agenda #53 and the shark proposals can be found here: pages 2-4 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec04.pdf, pages 1-5 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf, pages 1- 4 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec14.pdf, page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-05.pdf, page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-06.pdf.


http://www.cites.org/common/cop/15/inf/C15i-70.pdf�









34

54. Conservation of and trade in Coralliidae species Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-54.pdf This document was submitted by the USA and was to be considered if its’ joint proposal with the EU to include all species in the family Coralliidae in CITES Appendix II was adopted at CoP15. The document proposed revisions to Resolutions Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP14) and Conf. 13.7 (Rev. CoP14). Because proposal 21 to include the family Coralliidae in Appendix II was rejected by the Parties, the US withdrew this document and its proposals. For more information on the discussion regarding including Coralliidae in Appendix II, see pg. 3 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec10.pdf. 55. Trade in epiphytic cacti (Cactaceae spp.) Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-55.pdf This document, which was submitted by Switzerland, proposed a decision for the CITES Plants Committee to carry out an assessment of trade in epiphytic cacti and to review the listing of Cactaceae species in Appendix II with the intent of considering submitting proposals to the next CITES CoP meeting to remove species from the Appendices where appropriate. The draft decision in this document was adopted by consensus and can be seen below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_89.shtml. Directed to the Plants Committee 15.89 The Plants Committee shall assess trade in epiphytic cacti, considering the information of document CoP15 Doc. 55 and focusing especially on the genera Disocactus , Epiphyllum, Hatiora, Lepismium, Pseudorhipsalis, Rhipsalis and Schlumbergera. The Plants Committee shall consult with range States and if appropriate, encourage and support range States to submit proposals to exempt certain taxa of epiphytic cacti from Appendix II for consideration of the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. If there are many range States for a certain taxon, rendering it difficult to allocate responsibilities, or if range States do not take action, the Plants Committee shall prepare such proposals. 56. Euphorbia spp. Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-56.pdf This document, which was submitted by Switzerland, proposed for the CITES Plants Committee to assess trade in Euphorbia species and review its listings on Appendix II with the intent of submitting proposals for the next CITES CoP meeting to remove species from the Appendices where appropriate. The draft decision in this document was adopted by consensus and is here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_131.shtml. 57. Cedrela odorata, Dalbergia retusa, Dalbergia granadillo and Dalbergia stevensonii Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-57.pdf Submitted by the CITES Plants Committee, this document reported on the activities of the working group created to implement Decision 14.169, which is to determine the conservation status, trade in and sustainable use of these species, with the intent of deciding whether any species should be included on the CITES Appendices. This document set out a draft decision for range states of these species and other Parties to carry out further work on the species. The document was accepted with amendments by several Parties as per discussions on page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-









35

Com-I-Rec03.pdf) and page 4 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec12.pdf. The final decision that was adopted is below and also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_146.shtml. 14.146 (Rev. CoP15) The Conference of the Parties adopted the Action Plan attached as Annex 4 to these Decisions, to complete knowledge on the status of conservation of, trade in and sustainable use of Cedrela odorata, Dalbergia retusa, Dalbergia granadillo and Dalbergia stevensonii. 58. Bigleaf mahogany Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-58.pdf The CITES Plants Committee submitted the document for this agenda item which reported on the findings of the bigleaf mahogany working group created at CITES CoP14 and also proposed new draft decisions. Discussion of this agenda item was put to a working group which updated the set of decisions directed to the Secretariat and Plants Committee and created an Annex that outlines the Terms of Reference for the working group on “Bigleaf Mahogany and Other Neotropical Timber Species” (the new name of the working group) as well as details on the “Membership” of the working group (see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-I-14.pdf particularly for the Annex). The decisions and Annex were adopted by the Parties in plenary. The final decision is below and here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_91-93.shtml. Directed to the Plants Committee 15.91 The name of the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group shall be changed to " Working Group on the Bigleaf Mahogany and Other Neotropical Timber Species". Its terms of reference and membership are included in Annex 3 to these Decisions. 15.92 The Plants Committee shall explore mechanisms to support the implementation of Decision 14.146 (Rev. CoP15) and the related Annex, within the framework of cooperation between CITES and the International Tropical Timber Organization , and shall report on progress at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16). Directed to the Secretariat 15.93 a) The CITES Secretariat, within the framework of its cooperation with the International Tropical Timber Organization and other entities, shall seek funding from interested Parties, intergovernmental organizations, exporters, importers and other interested donors to support the implementation of Decision 14.146 (Rev. CoP15) and, if necessary, to ensure that the Working Group on the Bigleaf Mahogany and Other Neotropical Timber Species may work effectively. b) The CITES Secretariat shall continue its joint work with the ITTO Secretariat and shall report on progress at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 59. Taxus cuspidate (Japanese Yew) Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-59.pdf This document was submitted by the CITES Plants Committee and suggested recommendations regarding the treatment of hybrids and cultivars of this species under the CITES Convention. The document proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 11.11








36

(Rev. CoP14). IUCN and TRAFFIC identified a potential problem with the amendments initially proposed and raised this with the UK. The issue was resolved in the final wording adopted of Resolution Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP14) that defined the use of “cultivars”. See: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-I-05.pdf. 60. Agarwood-producing taxa Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-60.pdf The document for this agenda item was submitted by the CITES Plants Committee and focused on the definition of agarwood not as a timber species but as a Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP). Two draft decisions Regarding agarwood-producing taxa and an amendment to Resolution Conf. 10.13 (Rev. CoP14) on Implementation of the Convention for timber were accepted by consensus (see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-I-04.pdf ). The final decision reads as per below and is also found here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_137-138-140-141-144_15-94-95.shtml. 61. Report of the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-61.pdf The CITES Secretariat submitted this document which was to report on the activities of the Central Africa Bushmeat working group, but the working group had not submitted a report by the time of CITES CoP15. Several delegations (e.g. Spain on behalf of the EU, Israel) voiced their disapproval of the lack of reporting and the Chair of Committee II where this was discussed said that the CITES Parties will expect a full report of the working group’s activities at CITES CoP16. IUCN with TRAFFIC and WWF made an intervention outlining the successes that have taken place with conserving bushmeat species, expressing that bushmeat should remain a CITES priority and suggesting a broadening of geographic scope in this regard. For more information on discussion of this agenda item, see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec11.pdf. As per agenda item 19, two decisions related to work on bushmeat were retained (see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-19.pdf). The decisions are as follows: Directed to the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group: 14.73 The Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group is encouraged to collaborate with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in its work and is invited to draw to the attention of the Standing Committee and/or the Conference of the Parties to any matters relating to the implementation of Resolution Conf. 13.11. 14.74 (Rev. CoP15) The Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group is encouraged to continue its work, also by collaborating with the Convention on Biological Diversity Liaison Group on non-timber forest resources, and to report to the Standing Committee on progress made in implementing national action plans relating to the trade in bushmeat and other initiatives it takes regarding this subject. A report on the subject of bushmeat should be submitted at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.




http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_137-138-140-141-144_15-94-95.shtml�

http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_137-138-140-141-144_15-94-95.shtml�




37

62. Periodic Review of the Appendices Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-62.pdf The CITES Secretariat submitted the document for this agenda item and outlined in it that the procedures for undertaking periodic review have been ineffective with less than 10 species reviews conducted and no new proposals to amend the Appendices resulting from the process since CoP11. The Secretariat proposed a draft decision and resolution to deal with this in the Annexes to the document. Mexico, supported by China, Egypt, the United States of America and the Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees, believed that it was premature to consider revision of Resolution Conf. 14.8 and that the proposed amendments were unnecessary. They highlighted that the main problem with the existing framework under Resolution Conf. 14.8 was the lack of financial resources to undertake reviews. As a result, the document and its draft decision and resolution was rejected by consensus with the exception of paragraph 17 in which the Secretariat called for more funding for the Periodic Review process, which was endorsed. For more information, see also here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec05.pdf. 63. Criteria for the inclusion of species in Appendices I and II Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-63.pdf This issue was discussed initially in Committee I at CITES CoP15 with Parties expressing concern that the criteria should not be opened up for review. IUCN and TRAFFIC, having had significant experience of applying the criteria through producing the Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the Appendices for each CITES CoP meeting, had prepared an intervention identifying several areas of difficulty with this. A working group was formed of which IUCN was a member. Three draft decisions were drafted and adopted. These call upon IUCN/ TRAFFIC to, subject to external funding, prepare a report that will summarize their experiences in applying criterion Annex 2 a B and the introductory text to Annex 2 a of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP14) to some or all of the commercially exploited aquatic species that were proposed for inclusion on Appendix II at the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth meetings of the Conference of the Parties, highlighting any technical difficulties or ambiguous issues encountered, including, where appropriate, illustrations of these matters by comparison with application of the criteria to other species. The final decisions that were adopted relating to this agenda item are here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_28-30.shtml. For more information on the discussions from Committee I, see: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec05.pdf. 64. Cactaceae and Orchidaceae: review of annotations Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-64.pdf The document for this agenda item was drafted by the CITES Plants Committee and relates to reviewing plant taxa for the potential exemption of finished products. Draft decisions set out in the Annex of document 64 addressed “herbarium specimens” and also “evaluation of trade in finished products”. The final adopted decisions can be seen here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_32-33.shtml and http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_34.shtml.










38

65. Orchids: annotations for species included in Appendix II Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-65.pdf This agenda item related to creating further exemptions for artificially propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae species included in Appendix II. Several draft decisions were in the document including one directed to the Parties stating that “countries of export and import should make recommendations and prepare identification material on further exemptions for artificially propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae spp. included in Appendix II”. The decisions were adopted with the final versions of them are here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/14_133-134.shtml . 66. Annotations for tree species included in Appendices II and III Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-66.pdf This agenda item focused on reviewing and drafting amendments to the annotations of tree species listed in Appendices II and III. The document had several draft decisions including one that the Secretariat would “commission a trade study to review the trade in timber species listed in Appendices II and III to determine the types of specimens that initially appear in international trade or are exported from range States”. The draft decisions were adopted with the final versions of them here: http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_35-14_148-149.shtml. 67. Inconsistent implementation of Appendix-III timber listings annotated to include only the national populations of the listing countries Agenda document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-67.pdf This document was submitted by the USA and focused on ensuring that a uniform approach is applied for the control of and reporting on Appendix-III species listings that are annotated to include only the national populations of the listing countries. The United States proposed that Resolution Conf. 9.25 (Rev. CoP14) be revised by (1) deleting recommendation a) iv) and (2) adding a new recommendation that, if a Party proposes a population-level Appendix-III listing, the Secretariat consult with that Party to ensure that the listing will achieve the level of control and cooperation with other range states intended by the listing Party. The proposed revision to Resolution Conf. 9.25 (Rev. CoP14) as mentioned above was adopted with amendments found in the following document: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/ins/E15-Com-II-36.pdf. To view the discussion on this agenda item, see here: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-II-Rec12.pdf.

68. Proposals to amend Appendices I and II Final decisions on the proposals to amend the CITES Appendices are included in the table below. As per earlier Conference of the Parties (CoP) meetings, IUCN and TRAFFIC again produced the “Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the CITES Appendices” for CITES CoP15, a publication which objectively reviewed whether the proposed species met the biological and trade criteria for listing on either CITES Appendix I or II. To see the Analyses document produced by IUCN and TRAFFIC for CITES CoP15 go to: http://www.traffic.org/cop15-table.

Discussion was extensive for many of the proposals so it is not possible to summarize them in detail in this document, but references to the CITES Secretariat’s summary notes




http://www.cites.org/eng/dec/valid15/15_35-14_148-149.shtml�





http://www.traffic.org/cop15-table�

39

are provided in the table below where possible (particularly where they were rejected), so that it is possible to obtain more information on voting results for example. The acceptance or rejection of some proposals affected some agenda items, so in these cases the results of the proposals are discussed in the text in the agenda items above.

Higher taxa Species

Proposal number and proponent Proposal OUTCOME

F A U N A CHORDATA MAMMALIA Carnivora Canidae Canis lupus CoP15 Prop. 1 Addition of an annotation to

the species Canis lupus listed in Appendices I and II reading: "Excludes the domesticated form and the dingo which are referenced as Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo"

ACCEPTED

Switzerland, as Depositary Government, at the request of the Animals Committee

For discussion of proposal 1 see page 3 of : http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec06.pdf Felidae Lynx rufus CoP15 Prop. 2 Deletion from Appendix II REJECTED

United States of America

For discussion of proposal 2 see page 3 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec06.pdf Ursidae Ursus maritimus CoP15 Prop. 3 Transfer from Appendix II

to Appendix I REJECTED


For discussion of proposal 3 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec07.pdf PROBOSCIDEA Elephantidae Loxodonta africana CoP15 Prop. 4

(Rev. 1) Transfer the population of the United Republic of Tanzania from Appendix I to Appendix II with an annotation to read:

REJECTED

United Republic of Tanzania

"For the exclusive purpose of the following:

Loxodonta africana CoP15 Prop. 5 Transfer of the population of Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II for the exclusive purposes of allowing:

REJECTED

Zambia a) trade in hunting

trophies for non-commercial purposes;

Loxodonta africana CoP15 Prop. 6

Change annotation regarding the populations of Loxodonta africana of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe:

WITHDRAWN

Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Rwanda and Sierra Leone

For discussions on proposals 4, 5 and 6 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec12.pdf and page 4 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-05.pdf

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E-15-Prop-01.pdf�













40

AVES ANSERIFORMES Anatidae Anas oustaleti CoP15 Prop. 7 Deletion from Appendix I ACCEPTED

Switzerland, as Depositary Government, at the request of the Animals Committee

For discussion of proposal 7 see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec07.pdf REPTILIA CROCODYLIA Crocodylidae Crocodylus moreletii CoP15 Prop. 8 Transfer from Appendix I to

Appendix II with a zero quota for wild specimens

ACCEPTED (amended to apply to Mexico and Belize populations only)

Mexico

Crocodylus niloticus CoP15 Prop. 9 Transfer of the Egyptian population from Appendix I to Appendix II

REJECTED (later ACCEPTED when amended to a zero quota)

For discussion of proposals 8 and 9 see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec07.pdf and page 1 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-06.pdf SAURIA Agamidae Uromastyx ornata CoP15 Prop.

10 Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I

WITHDRAWN

Israel

Iguanidae Ctenosaura bakeri, C. oedirhina and C. melanosterna

CoP15 Prop. 11

Inclusion in Appendix II ACCEPTED

Honduras

Ctenosaura palearis CoP15 Prop. 12

Inclusion of Ctenosaura palearis in Appendix II

ACCEPTED

Guatemala

For discussion of proposal 10 see page 3 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec07.pdf and for discussions on proposals 11 and 12 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec09.pdf AMPHIBIA ANURA Hylidae Agalychnis spp. CoP15 Prop.

13 Inclusion in Appendix II ACCEPTED

Honduras and Mexico

For discussion of proposal 13 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec10.pdf CAUDATA Salamandridae Neurergus kaiseri CoP15 Prop.

14 Inclusion in Appendix I ACCEPTED

Islamic Republic of Iran

For discussion of proposal 14 see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec10.pdf ELASMOBRANCHII CARCHARHINIFORMES Sphyrnidae/ Sphyrna lewini,

S. mokarran, S. zygaena, Carcharhinus plumbeus, C. obscurus

CoP15 Prop. 15

Inclusion in Appendix II with the following annotation:

REJECTED

Carcharhinidae Palau and


"The entry into effect of the inclusion of these species in Appendix II of CITES will be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve the related technical and administrative issues."

Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus longimanus CoP15 Prop. Inclusion of in Appendix II REJECTED









http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E-15-Prop-%20%2011.pdf�















41

16 with the following annotation:

Palau and United States of America

"The entry into effect of the inclusion of Carcharhinus longimanus in Appendix II of CITES will be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve the related technical and administrative issues."

For discussion of proposals 15 and 16, see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf LAMNIFORMES Lamnidae Lamna nasus CoP15 Prop.

17 Annex Inclusion in Appendix II with the following annotation:

REJECTED (First Accepted in Committee I then Rejected in Plenary)

Palau and Sweden*

"The entry into effect of the inclusion of Lamna nasus in Appendix II of CITES will be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve related technical and administrative issues, such as the possible designation of an additional Management Authority and adoption of Customs codes."

For discussion of proposal 17 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec14.pdf and page 2 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-06.pdf. SQUALIFORMES Squalidae Squalus acanthias CoP15 Prop.

18 Inclusion in Appendix II with the following annotation:

REJECTED

Palau and Sweden*

"The entry into effect of the inclusion of Squalus acanthias in Appendix II of CITES will be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve related technical and administrative issues, such as the development of stock assessments and collaborative management agreements for shared stocks and the possible designation of an additional Scientific or Management Authority."

For discussion of proposal 18 see page 3 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec14.pdf ACTINOPTERYGII PERCIFORMES Scombridae Thunnus thynnus CoP15 Prop.

19 Inclusion in Appendix I REJECTED

Monaco For discussion of proposal 19, see page 1of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec08.pdf, page 5 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec10.pdf and pages 3 and 4 of http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Plen-06.pdf ARTHROPODA INSECTA COLEOPTERA Scarabaeidae Dynastes satanas CoP15 Prop.


The Plurinational State of Bolivia

For discussion of proposal 20 see page 4 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec14.pdf cnidaria ANTHOZOA GORGONACEAE
















42

Coralliidae Coralliidae spp. (Corallium spp. and Paracorallium spp.)

CoP15 Prop. 21

Inclusion of all species in the family in Appendix II with the following annotation:

REJECTED

Sweden* and United States of America

"The entry into effect of the inclusion of species in the family Coralliidae in Appendix II of CITES will be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve the related technical and administrative issues."

For discussion of proposal 21 see page 3 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec10.pdf F L O R A ANACARDIACEAE Operculicarya decaryi CoP15 Prop.

22 Inclusion in Appendix II WITHDRAWN

Madagascar

Operculicarya hyphaenoides

CoP15 Prop. 23


Madagascar

Operculicarya pachypus CoP15 Prop. 24


Madagascar

For discussion of proposals 22, 23 and 24 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf CACTACEAE and all taxa with annotation #1

CACTACEAE spp. and all taxa with annotation #1

CoP15 Prop. 25

Delete annotations #1 and #4 and replace them both with the following new annotation for plant taxa listed in Appendix II:

ACCEPTED - but amended

Mexico and United States of America, on behalf of the Plants Committee

"All parts and derivatives, except:

For discussion of proposal 25, see page 3 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec05.pdf CUCURBITACEAE Zygosicyos pubescens CoP15 Prop.


Madagascar

Zygosicyos tripartitus CoP15 Prop. 27


Madagascar

For discussion of proposals 26 and 27 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf EUPHORBIACEAE Euphorbia misera CoP15 Prop.

28 Deletion from Appendix II ACCEPTED

Mexico and United States of America

LAURACEAE Aniba rosaeodora CoP15 Prop. 29

Inclusion in Appendix II with the following annotation:

ACCEPT (with annotation to exclude finished and semi-finished products)

Brazil "#11 Designates logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets, plywood and essential oil."

For discussion of proposals 28 and 29 see page 4 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf FABACEAE Senna meridionalis CoP15 Prop.

30 Inclusion in Appendix II REJECTED

[According to the standard nomenclatural reference adopted by the Conference of the Parties, this species is within the Family


























43

"LEGUMINOSAE (Fabaceae)"] Madagascar For discussion of proposals 30 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf ORCHIDACEAE ORCHIDACEAE spp.

included in Appendix I CoP15 Prop. 31

Amend the annotation to the listing of Orchidaceae included in Appendix I, as follows:

ACCEPTED


Delete the current annotation, which states:

Replace with the following new annotation:

PALMAE (Arecaceae) Beccariophoenix madagascariensis

CoP15 Prop. 32

Inclusion of the seeds of the species in Appendix II

ACCEPTED

Madagascar Dypsis decaryi CoP15 Prop.

33 Inclusion of the seeds of the species in Appendix II

ACCEPTED

[According to the standard nomenclatural reference adopted by the Conference of the Parties, this species is named Neodypsis decaryi]

Madagascar For discussion of proposals 31, 32 and 33, see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec06.pdf PASSIFLORACEAE Adenia firingalavensis CoP15 Prop.


Madagascar Adenia olaboensis CoP15 Prop.


Madagascar

Adenia subsessifolia CoP15 Prop. 36

Inclusion in Appendix II WITHDRAWN

[According to the standard nomenclatural reference adopted by the Conference of the Parties, this species is named Adenia subsessilifolia]

Madagascar For discussion of proposals 34, 35 and 36 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf PROTEACEAE Orothamnus zeyheri CoP15 Prop.


South Africa Protea odorata CoP15 Prop.


South Africa For discussion of proposals 37 and 38 see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec06.pdf VITACEAE Cyphostemma

elephantopus CoP15 Prop. 39


Madagascar Cyphostemma laza CoP15 Prop.


Madagascar Cyphostemma montagnacii

CoP15 Prop. 41


Madagascar For discussion of proposals 39, 40 and 41 see page 1 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec13.pdf ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Bulnesia sarmientoi CoP15 Prop.

42 Inclusion in Appendix II with the following annotation:

ACCEPTED

Argentina "#11 Designates logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets, plywood, powder and extracts."

For discussion of proposal 42, see page 2 of: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/sum/E15-Com-I-Rec06.pdf.































The End Of CITES As We Know It?

A Discussion Paper by TRAFFIC International on the outcomes of the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES and what it holds for the future of the

Convention

FOR INTERNAL TRAFFIC USE ONLY The 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CITES CoP15) that took place in Doha, Qatar from 13-25 March 2010 ended with all the listing proposals for commercially important marine species soundly rejected by the Parties and the view by many that the meeting was a dismal failure for species conservation. Serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness of CITES, with growing concerns that economics and politics considerations are being placed over conservation priorities and scientific evidence. The aim of this Discussion Paper is to provide an initial assessment of what were the real outcomes of CITES CoP15, what were the decisive factors influencing those outcomes, how these factors will influence future CITES decision-making and, at the very least, start the conversation on how TRAFFIC would need to respond to these factors its terms of the content of its programme and the advocacy strategy supporting that programme. To accomplish this, this paper examines: (i) Initial views by the TRAFFIC CoP15 delegation (as per an e-mail discussion on March

30th, 2010)

(ii) The actual results of the CoP15 listing prop, viz. whether proposals supported by TRAFFIC were accepted or reject, as well as proposals not accepted by TRAFFIC

(iii) The actual results of the CoP15 agenda item discussions, viz. whether CoP15 agenda documents resulted in positive conservation outcomes, particularly in terms of TRAFFIC recommendations for those agenda items

(iv) Media coverage of the CITES CoP15 outcomes

(v) Views by CITES Parties and TRAFFIC partners on the CoP15 outcome

The above views are discussed and recommendations for further action by TRAFFIC are proposed at the end of this Paper.

Page 38

1. TRAFFIC CoP15 DELEGATION VIEWS On March 30th, 2010, TRAFFIC International distributed a document to members of the TRAFFIC CoP15 delegation outlining the CITES CoP15 agenda documents which TRAFFIC had identified earlier as high or medium priority, together with the TRAFFIC recommendations w for these agenda items and the actual outcomes for these agenda items from the meeting (such as decisions, resolution amendments and other actions). This document prompted a broader e-mail discussion among a number of delegation members on the failures and successes of this year’s CoP, as well as the factors that influenced them. Points raised in the discussion are summarised below, grouped in three main questions that emerged out of that discussion:

(i) Is CITES broken?

The outcomes of CoP15 were the most disappointing ever CITES is increasingly failing to come to grips with fisheries, timber and even

caviar and elephants CITES is broken in many respects and we're sure on how to pick up the pieces The overall process of using CITES as a basis for guiding multilateral action to

address wildlife trade problems and promote related conservation solutions has reached a messy impasse

Progress was made on rhinos, tiger trade, agarwood, ivory trade in China and Thailand and other key topics in backroom talks and in the corridors talking with key delegates

CoP was far less of a disaster than many have claimed There is a huge diversity of understanding among Parties and other stakeholders

as to what the Convention is, how it works and what it is trying to achieve. Huge voting blocks like the EU have effectively become a mute, ineffectual force

with their "abstain into the void" policy, while others such as those led by Japan and the Arab States were extremely effective. The EU was incredibly discombobulated in its lack of organisation (a truly double negative) and positional play, and not a strong force of conservation on many agenda items.

35 years after coming into play, CITES is still working out methodologies for assessing sustainability - the cornerstone of implementing Article IV and ensuring legal permitted trade

Parties seemed averse to listing more new species for simply 'conservation intent' at a time when the work programme on listed species is burdensome enough. Some proposals were pious statements of intent rather than for the sake of real conservation gains.

CITES appears to be failing to tackle the big issues and amusing itself by tackling the irrelevant ones.

(ii) Has economics and politics trumped conservation and science?

Science and conservation were not driving the decisions at CoP 15 Conservationists are up against intractable forces and vested interests that will

almost always have the means to negate and prevail over our own good efforts. It is imprudent to believe that good science and sound arguments will ultimately

triumph over commercial and emotional interests We are influential with spotted newts and satanic beetle, but our views on tunas,

sharks and elephants seemingly don't count Following the science and rallying around the listing criteria worked well with

species for which there were no significant economic or political concerns but not where there were important economic impact

Page 39

The difficulty dealing with conservation/trade within overwhelmingly chaotic global economic context was very much apparent, particularly after the disappointment of Copenhagen

CITES extending beyond its purview into issues of sovereignty was a rallying cry of dissent among many Parties.

The fact that CITES this has now attracted some real-world multilateral trade politics is in many ways a sign of success

Although we do sometimes get listened to on the science side, this isn't translating into buttons pushed in sufficient numbers on issues of commercial interest.

Are marine species still relevant to CITES? The resounding defeat of the BFT proposal and the blocking minority stopping the sharks are inextricably related

Politics cuts both ways – sometimes unjustifiably favouring protectionist outcomes (as with elephants) and sometimes unjustifiably working against conservation outcomes

(iii) What is the role of TRAFFIC?

CITES has grown in membership exponentially, the rules of procedure basically

negate the influence of NGOs in terms of interventions by giving preference to the Parties in the course of any debate

The need to invest in greater pre-CoP outreach and campaigns to try and seal more of the deal before we even get to the CoPs

TRAFFIC does not have the resources for much more than what we are already doing

More progress was made in the margins bilaterally discussing issues with key countries than through the proceedings of the CoP

TRAFFIC needs to take the long view in terms of conservation impacts of the work leading up to and during the CoP, rather than focussing on the individual listing proposals - CITES listings aren't guarantees of conservation

Media coverage throughout the CoP was rather biased towards the proposals, rather than the implementation of work regarding existing listed species, and the simple business of making CITES work. Not surprising, as that sort of stuff is not 'news' necessarily, but is where some of TRAFFIC's best work is showcased

2. COP15 RESULTS In trying to answer the question of whether CITES CoP15 was, overall, a success or a failure, a table outlining the results of the CoP is attached in Appendix I. This compares the recommendations made by TRAFFIC for each of the listing proposals and the actual outcome of those proposals, as well as the recommendations made by TRAFFIC for the CoP15 agenda items and the outcomes that emerged from those. On the listing proposals, Table I below summarises the results of those proposals which TRAFFIC recommended that Parties support:

TABLE I: Proposals supported by TRAFFIC ACCEPTED

REJECTED/WITHDRAWN

Mammals – Carnivora Canis lupus Mammals - Proboscidea Loxodonta africana (Zambia) Birds – Anatidae Anas Oustaleti

Page 40

TABLE I: Proposals supported by TRAFFIC ACCEPTED

REJECTED/WITHDRAWN

Reptiles - Crocodylidae Crocodylus moreletii Reptiles- Iguanidae Ctenosaura palearis Amphibia -. Agalychnis spp Neurergus kaiseri Fish- Sphyrnidae/ Carcharhinidae

Sphyrna lewini, S. mokarran, S. zygaena, Cacharhinus plumbeus, C. obsucurus

Fish – Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus longimanus Fish – Lamnidae Lamna nasus Fish – Squalidae Squalus acanthias Fish – Scombridae Thunnus thynnus Coralliidae Corallieedae spp. Cactaceae Cactaceae spp. Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia misera Lauraceae Aniba rosaeodora Orchidaceae Orchidaceae spp. Palmae Beccariophoenix madagascariensis Palmae Dypsis decayi Proteaceae Orothamnus zeyheri Proteaceae Ptotea ordarata Zygophyllaceae Bulnesia sarmientoi

Of the 21 proposals that TRAFFIC supported, the CITES Parties accepted 14 of them (66%), while 7 were rejected. All of the marine species proposals supported by TRAFFIC were rejected by Parties, while Parties agreed with TRAFFIC recommendation on all but one of the terrestrial species proposals supported by TRAFFIC. That one proposal was the Zambian proposal on African elephants and TRAFFIC’s support was conditional on the proposal not involving any ivory trade. Table II below looks at it from a different perspective, viz. it summarises the results of those proposals which TRAFFIC recommended that Parties NOT support: TABLE II: Proposals not supported by TRAFFIC

REJECTED/WITHDRAWN ACCEPTED

Mammals - Carnivora Lync Rufus Mammals - Carnivora Ursus maritimus Mammals - Proboscidea Loxodonta africana (Tanzania) Mammals - Proboscidea Loxodonta africana (Kenya) Reptiles - Crocodylidae Crocodylus niloticus Reptiles- Agamidae Uromastyx ornata

Reptiles- Iguanidae Ctenosaura bakeri, C. oedhirhina, C. melanosterna

Insects - Scarabaeidae Dynastes satanas Anacardiaceae Operculicarya decaryi Anacardiaceae Operculicarya hyphaenoides

Page 41

TABLE II: Proposals not supported by TRAFFIC

REJECTED/WITHDRAWN ACCEPTED

Anacardiaceae Operculicarya pachypus Cucurbitaceae Zygosicyos pubescens Cucurbitaceae Zygosicyos tripartitus Fabaceae Senna meridionalis Passifloraceae Adenia firingalavensis Passifloraceae Adenia olaboensis Passifloraceae Adenia subsessifolia Vitaceae Cyphostemma elephantopus Vitaceae Cyphostemma laza Vitaceae Cyphostemma montagnacii

Of the 20 proposals TRAFFIC called on Parties to reject, Parties agreed with TRAFFIC on only 11 of them (55%). Of the 9 recommendations where Parties disagreed with TRAFFIC, 7 of them were the plant proposals from Madagascar, while the remaining 2 were the proposals for Ctenosaura bakeri, C. oedhirhina, C. melanosterna) and Dynastes satanas. In total, of the 41 listing proposals submitted, Parties agreed with TRAFFIC recommendations on 25 of them (61%) and disagreed with 16. This is perhaps the lowest proportion of agreement with TRAFFIC recommendations for any CITES CoP (see Figure I). At CITES CoP14, for example, out of a total of 36 listing proposals, Parties were in agreement with 25 of TRAFFIC’s listing proposal recommendations (69%) – and this was despite disappointments over a number of marine fisheries and timber listings. More typical were the results of CoP13 where, with 50 listing proposals on the table, Parties agreed with 40 TRAFFIC recommendations (80%). Figure I

It should be noted, though, that of the 16 TRAFFIC recommendations Parties disagreed with at CoP15, the majority (13) were either marine species proposals or species proposals involving the Madagascan plants. It is therefore clear that, with regard to species proposals, the focus for TRAFFIC should be on new approaches to more effectively address marine species proposals. With regard to the decisions on the Madagascan plants, the approach should focus on capacity building as these emerged primarily from a desire by Parties to take a more positive approach with Madagascar and encourage its capacity to conduct non-detriment findings.

Page 42

Another issue that also needs to be taken into account of, particularly with regard to the marine species, is the difficulty of applying the criteria in evaluating these proposals – an issue that was a challenge to Parties as well as TRAFFIC and IUCN. It should be noted, however, that this difficulty did not apply to the tuna proposal. In addition, it must also be recognized that a quantitative analysis such as this can be misleading, as we are comparing a large number of proposals on what may be minor species issues with those on, say, marine species and elephants, which loom very large in their programmatic significance. With regard to the CoP15 agenda items, the picture is significantly more positive. Appendix I outlines as the recommendations made by TRAFFIC for the CoP15 agenda items that TRAFFIC had earlier identified as being of high or medium priority, and the outcomes that emerged from those. In addition, a qualitative assessment is made on whether those outcomes were Good, Fair or Poor. A summary of that assessment is outlined in Table III and Figure II overleaf.

Page 43

TA

BLE

III:

CoP

15 A

GE

ND

A IT

EM

S -

OU

TC

OM

ES

G

OO

D

FA

IR

PO

OR

R

epo

rt o

f th

e C

hai

r o

f th

e A

nim

als

Co

mm

itte

e

R

epo

rt o

f th

e P

lan

ts C

om

mit

tee

Ch

air

Syn

erg

y w

ith

bio

div

ersi

ty-r

elat

ed in

tern

atio

nal

init

iati

ves

Co

op

erat

ion

wit

h t

he

Fo

od

an

d A

gri

cult

ure

Org

aniz

atio

n o

f th

e U

nit

ed N

atio

ns

G

lob

al S

trat

egy

for

Pla

nt

Co

nse

rvat

ion

of

the

Co

nve

nti

on

on

Bio

log

ical

Div

ersi

ty

S

tate

men

ts f

rom

rep

res

enta

tive

s o

f o

ther

co

nve

nti

on

s an

d a

gre

eme

nts

Co

op

erat

ion

wit

h in

tern

atio

nal

fin

anci

al in

stit

uti

on

s

CIT

ES

an

d li

veli

ho

od

s

C

apac

ity

Bu

ild

ing

Inte

rnat

ion

al e

xper

t w

ork

sho

p o

n n

on

-det

rim

ent

fin

din

gs

No

n-d

etri

men

t fi

nd

ing

s fo

r ti

mb

er,

med

icin

al p

lan

ts a

nd

ag

arw

oo

d

R

evi

ew o

f R

eso

luti

on

s -

Co

nf.

10.

10 (

Re

v. C

oP

14)

– T

rad

e in

ele

ph

ant

spec

imen

s

R

evi

ew o

f D

ecis

ion

s 14

.76

an

d 1

4.78

(o

n t

he

Afr

ican

Ele

ph

ant

)

Re

view

of

Dec

isio

n 1

4.73

an

d 1

4.74

(o

n B

ush

mea

t)

R

evi

ew o

f D

ecis

ion

s o

n A

gar

wo

od

En

forc

emen

t m

atte

rs

R

evi

sio

n o

f R

eso

luti

on

Co

nf.

11.

3 (R

ev.

Co

P14

) o

n C

om

plia

nce

an

d e

nfo

rcem

ent

Re

view

of

Sig

nif

ican

t T

rad

e in

sp

ecim

ens

of

Ap

pen

dix

-II p

lan

t sp

ecie

s

Intr

od

uct

ion

fro

m t

he

sea

E-c

om

me

rce

of

spec

imen

s o

f C

ITE

S-l

iste

d s

pec

ies

Gre

at a

pes

As

ian

big

cat

s: r

evi

sio

n o

f R

eso

luti

on

Co

nf.

12.

5

E

lep

han

ts:

Mo

nit

ori

ng

of

ille

gal

tra

de

in iv

ory

an

d o

ther

ele

ph

ant

spec

imen

s

R

hin

oce

ros:

Afr

ican

an

d A

sian

Rh

ino

cero

ses

– S

tatu

s, C

on

serv

atio

n a

nd

Tra

de

R

hin

oce

ros:

Re

visi

on

of

Res

olu

tio

n C

on

f. 9

.14

Tib

etan

an

telo

pe

S

aig

a an

telo

pe

S

nak

e tr

ade

To

rto

ises

an

d f

resh

wat

er t

urt

les

Haw

ksb

ill t

urt

les

H

um

ph

ead

wra

sse:

ad

dit

ion

al m

anag

eme

nt

mea

sure

s n

eed

ed t

o c

om

bat

IUU

fis

hin

g

A

tlan

tic

blu

efin

tu

na

Co

nse

rva

tio

n a

nd

man

agem

ent

of

shar

ks a

nd

sti

ng

rays

Ced

rela

od

ora

ta,

Dal

ber

gia

ret

usa

, D

alb

erg

ia g

ran

adill

o a

nd

Dal

ber

gia

ste

ven

son

ii

Big

leaf

mah

og

any

Rep

ort

of

the

Cen

tral

Afr

ica

Bu

shm

eat

Wo

rkin

g G

rou

p

C

rite

ria

for

the

incl

usi

on

of

spec

ies

in A

pp

end

ices

I an

d II

Page 44

Figure II

Of the 37 agenda documents identified as high or medium priority by TRAFFIC, it can said that 30 agenda items emerged with good conservation outcomes, 4 with fair outcomes and 3 with outcomes that were poor from the perspective of conservation. The three poor outcomes related to the expected statements (under the agenda item of ‘Cooperation with international financial institutions’) from World Bank-led Global Tiger Initiative that were not made due to the absence of its presenters, lack of any action on Tibetan antelopes and the withdrawal of an Atlantic Bluefin tuna document that was irrelevant anyway, with the defeat of the tuna listing proposal. In addition, a number of important strategic issues were ignored by the CoP, such as economic incentives. It should be noted that a few outcomes that were deemed ‘good’ came perilously close to being poor outcomes. The shark agenda item proposals were initially defeated in Committee I but revised proposals were accepted in plenary after negotiations between the proponents and opposing countries. The Asian big cat agenda item was only agreed to by range States (including China) after many long and painful discussions with European Union. A Global Tiger Initiative event held at the CoP proved to be a disaster. Even if a more conservative approach were taken in re-evaluating the outcomes that were deemed as good, it is clear that, in terms of the agenda item documents alone, CITES CoP 15 does not appear to be the unmitigated disaster that the results of the proposal listings led many to believe. None of the agenda items discussed led to any outcomes that were a significant setback to species conservation – though many key agenda items had the potential for disaster midway through the meeting (such as those related to elephants, Asian big cats, sharks and the listing criteria). As noted in the specific outcomes outlined in Appendix I of this document, most of the CoP15 agenda items that TRAFFIC had identified as priorities did produce positive, conservation decisions and policy progress. Of particular note for the TRAFFIC programme are the decisions related to further CITES engagement with FAO on forest and non-timber forest products; sea cucumbers; agarwood and medicinal plants; illegal trade databases; Asian big cat trade; sharks trade; elephant ivory trade; rhino trade; saiga antelope; bushmeat; and the criteria for inclusion of species in Appendices I and II.

3. MEDIA VIEWS

Looking at a representative sample of 27 post-CoP analyses by key news organisations (see Appendix II), a number of themes emerged that appear to echo some of the themes that were highlighted by the TRAFFIC management team’s e-mail discussion in Section 1 above, viz. that this CITES CoP was a failure and a setback for conservation; economics and politics played a more significant role in the decision-making than did

Page 45

conservation and science; the great doubt about how effectively CITES can now address marine fisheries; and the aggressive advocacy methods used by the Japanese government. The headlines of the articles in Table IV overleaf give some indication of how the media perceived were the main themes that emerged out of the CoP.

TABLE IV: Media coverage and themes of the CITES CoP15 outcomes

1. CITES CoP15 was a failure

A ‘disaster’ for conservation - Bonnie James/Deputy News Editor, Gulf Times, Mar 25, 2010

Little celebration as CITES ends - Nick Clark, Al Jazeera, Mar 25, 2010 Endangered species abandoned at UN wildlife conference - Christian Science

Monitor, March 26, 2010 Conservationists arm gamekeepers as CITES fails critical species - Tim Edwards,

thefirstpost.co.uk, Mar 21, 2010

2. Economics vs Conservation

Economy trumps ecology at UN wildlife meet - Marlowe Hood, AFP, Mar 25, 2010 Trade beats conservation at summit - Al Jazeera, Mar 25, 2010 Commerce trumps conservation at wildlife convention - Tony Gentile, REUTERS,

Mar 23, 2010

3. Politics vs Science

How bureaucrats decided not to save the bluefin tuna - Adam Mynott, BBC, 27 March 2010

Politics of extinction - Sreeran Chaulia, The Financial Express (India), Mar 25, 2010 Dirty politics turned CITES into a ‘tragedy of the oceans’ - Fishnewseu.com, Mar

25, 2010

4. Marine fisheries & CITES

CITES: Murky waters for marine conservation - Richard Black, BBC, 25 March 2010

A Fish Too Far - Tim Kelly, Forbes, Mar 21, 2010 Fishy business - The Economist, Mar 25, 2010 The Fishing Lobby Wins Again - Editorial, New York Times, March 19, 2010

5. Japanese advocacy methods Japan big winner at UN conservation meeting - Michael Casey, Associated Press, Mar

25, 2010 Japan marshals victory against tuna ban - Joshua Chaffin, Financial Times, March 19

2010 How Japanese sushi offensive sank move to protect bluefin tuna - The Guardian, Mar

25, 2010 A toothless West watches as Japan guts fish stocks - The Sunday Times, March 28,

2010

Page 46

Figure III

It should be noted that media coverage of the outcomes of CITES CoP15 was unprecedented when compared with coverage of previous CoPs (see Figure III) above, not just in terms of sheer volumes of individual articles and column inches devoted to the CoP, but also in terms of the newspapers and agencies covering it. News organisations such as The Financial Times, The Economist, Christian Science Monitor and the New York Times, which in the past would have given the outcome of a CITES CoP scant coverage, this time round devoted quite lengthy editorials on the outcome – a reflection, perhaps, of the greater attention being paid by the wider economic world on what was in the past perceived to be a purely environmental convention that was on the sidelines. It must be recognized that media coverage focussed overwhelmingly on the listing proposals, rather than the agenda items which are, arguably, the core of CITES’ programme of work. It must also be borne in mind that media coverage, by its nature, would focus on conflict and controversy and the extreme positions on a particular issue. Nevertheless, media coverage on the outcomes of CITES CoP15 can also be arguably perceived as a ‘public’ perspective of what the CoP accomplished (or did not accomplish) and the way in which decisions were made. Because of this, the media’s perspective on the outcomes will also no doubt influence how some governments react to the CoP outcomes in coming years.

4. VIEWS OF THE PARTIES AND PARTNERS

In fact, public statements from Parties and organisations concerned already echoed many of the media perspectives and themes outlined previously:

Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary-General CITES Secretariat (Al Jazeera): "As soon as big money gets involved, the 's' of science is crossed out by two vertical stripes ($)... There is an enormous economic interest in catching and trading these species, and a CITES piece of paper is really a nuisance [for traders]."

Page 47

Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary-General CITES Secretariat (AFP): "Japan thinks that CITES should keep its hands off of commercial species. I think that is wrong. The reach of regional fisheries such as ICCAT stops at national borders.” Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary-General CITES Secretariat (CITES Press Release) "To say that the Conference was a disaster is simply an exaggeration. I am convinced that governments, NGOs and businesses have learnt a good lesson: the solutions to conserve the earth's rich heritage of biological diversity cannot be incompatible with the sustainable development of local communities and national economies. CITES will be closely watching the progress made on the adoption of conservation measures to protect marine species in other fora." Kevern Cochrane, FAO (Nature): "The science was well received and helped focus the debate. Everybody agreed that the population is under threat." Masanori Miyahara, chief counsellor from the fisheries agency of Japan (Economist): "We look on a case-by-case basis, but as a general principle we are not convinced CITES measures can help. Regional fisheries-management organisations such as ICCAT are a better solution. Even when endangered populations recover, it has proved difficult to reduce or remove CITES protection. Fisheries have to change in accordance with fish reserves, and CITES is not flexible. Sunset clauses on CITES listings, as well as formal links between CITES and regional fishery bodies such as ICCAT, would help Japan overcome its objections." Masanori Miyahara, chief counsellor from the fisheries agency of Japan (AFP): "CITES discourages collective action. This organisation is only talking about winning and losing. It is too much. We must work hard together to reach some consensus action" Hisashi Endo, the director of the Ecosystem and Conservation Office in the Fisheries Agency of Japan (Associated Press): "Delegates stuck to the facts. They argued that regional fisheries bodies were better suited to regulate marine species and that the CITES ban was unfair." Tom Strickland, the US assistant secretary of the interior for fish, wildlife and parks (Al Jazeera): "It's been a difficult conference from a conservation standpoint, perhaps because of the economic environment." Javier Rosero, Ecuador (Associated Press): "The Americans were often too slow to react and were not forceful enough when they did. And in meetings with Ecuadorean officials, the Americans didn't bring anything to offer to the table. I have been talking to Japan and they say, 'What do you need? What kind of project are you able to do?'. The Japanese come to make business and the States come to explain." Tom Strickland, the US assistant secretary of the interior for fish, wildlife and parks (USFWS press release): “As a result of these decisions these species will continue to be overexploited in international trade. This is a significant setback for these marine species, but we view it as only a temporary setback. We are encouraged by the strong majority vote in favor, and we will continue our efforts to protect these shark species. We will redouble our efforts with other countries around the world to fight for the protection of marine species imperiled by international trade,” Gael de Rotalier, European Union (Nature): "The vote has raised doubts about whether CITES can apply to commercial marine species. This is a real setback for CITES - Bluefin tuna was an important test." Unnamed European Union official (Financial Times): "The decisions kind of took the EU by surprise"

Page 48

Hussin Ali Zarough, Libya (Associated Press): "There was no quid pro quo. We were with Japan on tuna but not the sharks. That shows Libyan independence." Carlos Drews, WWF Species Programme (WWF press release). "It is shameful that many CITES governments ignored science in favour of political gain when making decisions on marine species. These issues dominated this meeting and will come up again in future meetings. If Cites cannot set aside political considerations and follow scientific evidence, the implications for conservation, sustainable use of marine species and coastal livelihoods are worrying."

However, it is interesting to note that while many of the proponents and supporters of the marine species proposals cited economics as one of the main deciding factors behind the defeat of the proposals, interventions by the key opponents to the proposals focussed on other issues and not just economics. The key issues cited in Japan’s interventions on the floor against the tuna and shark proposals, for example, included: 1. Synergy with the other relevant organizations, especially in terms of RFMOs’ role in shark management. 2. CITES not being the appropriate tool for management of shark fisheries until further technical issues are

resolved such as "Introduction from the Sea", formation of non-detriment findings and financial resources. 3. Commitment to ICCAT and its role in managing tuna populations and their support for the imposition of a

ban, if necessary, but only if it is by imposed by ICCAT 4. Their view that tuna populations in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean to be healthy and that the

species is not endangered. 5. The burden that a listing would place on coastal States by preventing sustainable use and sustainable

development, both of which were guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.

6. The unfairness that developed nations could continue to satisfy their large domestic markets despite an Appendix-I listing.

7. The listing may encourage future listings of other tuna species for look-alike reasons. 8. Lack of clarity over annotations for delayed implementation of the listing proposed by Spain

The question of economics was raised by other Parties, primarily developing States. In their interventions on the tuna proposal, for example, Tunisia, UAE, Senegal and Grenada emphasized the socio-economic implications of an Appendix-I listing, with the Grenada noting that an Appendix I would affect the livelihoods and food security of Small Island Developing States. Concern was also expressed over the socio-economic impact on fleet owners. These objections were made despite the same Parties indicating that they were also in agreement that many of these species did indeed meet the criteria for listing. While frequently using the ‘economics’ card, developing States used the science ‘card’ even more frequently, emphasizing the role of ICCAT as the scientific organization best suited to addressing tuna management and stressing that any CITES decisions should await the results of the scientific assessment being undertaken by ICCAT. Interventions by developing States also noted that, while a precautionary approach was warranted, conservation and management should be science-based and expressed concerns that an increase in fishing pressure on other fish species if the proposal were adopted. It is evident that the key factors that assisted these Parties were (i) the existence of another legally-binding management instrument (which, in the view of conservationists, was not functioning); (ii) the lack of agreement within CITES itself on how to implement marine species listings; and (iii) the perception that the supporters of the listing themselves (in particular the EU) would not seriously implement such a listing. Certainly, a more comprehensive and detailed evaluation must be made of what CITES Parties, and key CITES players such as the CITES Secretariat and other MEAs and IGOs perceive as the new challenges now facing the Convention and how they should respond to them. An issue that certainly needs to be addressed is the visceral cultural antipathy on the part of countries such as Japan and China to bringing fisheries issues under the remit of a body that they see as protectionist in nature and

Page 49

a concern that they might surrender sovereignty, food security and economic development in doing so. This appears to be more of a political and philosophical impasse than an economics-driven one. There appears to be a cadre of Parties within Parties that are not comfortable with the role of CITES in managing commercially important species, evident from the delaying tactics they use on issues such as Introduction from the Sea and the listing criteria and their reliance on non-functioning management mechanisms outside of CITES. The challenge is to persuade these countries that management of commercial species by CITES was what it was established to do, is beneficial economically and is inevitable.

5. DISCUSSION Was CITES CoP15 a failure? To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumours of the death of CITES are perhaps exaggerated. The clear failure of CITES to convince Parties that it can play a strong role in assisting Parties in controlling international trade in commercially important species is a fact and the rejection of the all the listing proposals involving marine species at the CoP cannot be ignored. But it is unfortunate that this particular failure overshadowed the many positive outcomes that emerged out of the CoP that would help make CITES stronger, such as those relating to closer engagement with FAO on non-forest timber products; using new technologies such as databases, e-commerce and e-permitting; compliance measures on ivory trade and Asian big cats; and actions planned to resolve complex issues such as the listing criteria and introduction from the sea. Nevertheless, it could be argued that if CITES continues to fail in addressing the big strategic issues such as fisheries and only makes progress on lesser operational issues, its future effectiveness could well be in doubt. Will economics now dominate CITES debate? When economically-important species come up for discussion in CITES, it should perhaps come as no surprise that economics would be an important part of the debate and political decision-making process. Whether the economics actually dominates the discussion and whether it trumps the scientific argument is a debatable – as noted earlier, actual interventions by Parties during debates did not actually present economic arguments in a detailed and comprehensive manner (presenting only the threats to the economics rather than the economics themselves) and the ‘science’ card was used to defeat proposals even more than the ‘economics’ card. However, it should come as no surprise that ‘hard’ economic debate will increasingly feature in future CITES discussions and CITES must be ready for that debate (which it clearly was not at CoP15, evidenced by the inadequate and inconsistent preparation of Parties to counteract these arguments). While CITES has toyed with socio-economic concepts such as the impact of CITES on local livelihoods, it has not really seriously addressed the much broader issue of the role of CITES in meeting national economic and development goals (beyond its cursory examination of its contribution to the Millennium Development Goals and the CITES Secretariat’s project on national policy reviews). CITES’ approach to issues must certainly now be more akin to the way multilateral organisations such as the RFMOs and ITTO conduct their business if it is to be viewed a major player in controlling international trade commercially important marine and timber species. Engagement with wider economic fora, such as the WTO, will also allow CITES to take a broader approach to addressing the question of hard economics in the context of national development and the protection of national interests. This also has implications for the work that TRAFFIC’s research, analysis and policy work, where it will need to contextualise the significance of trade in socio-economic terms. Will the role of science now diminish in CITES decision-making? It should also be noted that, contrary to most perspectives on the CoP15 outcomes, science was not ignored by those promoting vested economic interests but used by them as well in their arguments (as noted in their interventions from the floor outlined earlier). It was, in fact, used selectively to support politically-convenient positions and ignored where it became an inconvenient truth. Parties played the science card all the time, as it is much more acceptable to state a public position that is based on science rather than vested economic interests. However, there has been an increasing and blatant use quasi-scientific arguments, with misrepresentations and distortions of science (sometimes contrary to what the science actually said) which other Parties were unfortunately not really prepared to respond to. The question is therefore not whether the role of science has diminished – it has not – but how to most effectively use and present the science in advocating the conservation agenda and using

Page 50

science in a careful and legitimate way. Where the role of science has previously been to focus on the biological science and present the case for conservation alone, CITES must also seriously examine the role of other sciences such as economics and the social sciences, so that the case for conservation can be made not just with the best biological science available, but with the socio-economic information necessary for decision-making. Will politics now determine CITES decision-making? Those familiar with the CITES debates on elephants and whales will certainly be aware that CoP15 is not the first time politics has been perceived to determine CITES decision-making. However, the key difference now is that the debate on the marine species has a much harder economic edge to the politics, involving industries, business interests and economic values that are of a much higher magnitude than that for ivory or whale meat. These fisheries also involve the employment of more people (and, potentially, more voters) than most other economic activities CITES is involved with, adding a much more political agenda to the debate. Issues of sovereignty, national interest and cultural identity were paramount and provided a curtain behind which irresponsible industry could hide. CITES therefore has to address this issues bearing in mind and taking into account of these considerations in its decision-making process. CITES CoP15 also saw the emergence of new political alliances that would present a challenge for conservationists, including a newly resurgent Arab-speaking alliance led by the Arab League and a looser alliance of Asian developing countries led by Japan and China.

What is the future of commercially important marine and other species in CITES? The results of CoP16 may leave observers with a pessimistic picture of the future of commercially important species in CITES, in particular marine species. However, it should be noted that the CoP also revealed some points that give some grounds for optimism. A number of the marine proposals tabled at this CoP, including that of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, actually had the tacit support of the FAO. Countries which previously would have never entertained the mere idea of fisheries proposals in CITES, such as Norway, came out in full support of some of these proposals. Efforts by CITES to highlight the complementary and supportive role CITES can play in helping other organisations and national governments in managing these resources must therefore continue but must be extended more vigorously to the key national governments that remain unconvinced or even fearful of the role of CITES in managing the international trade in these resources. These efforts must also take into account the economic and development goals and aspirations of the national governments involved and demonstrate that the case being made for CITES also takes into consideration those goals and aspirations. In addition, quite valid concerns that CITES has still not fully resolved technical issues such as interpretation of the listing criteria and introduction from must be given priority and a sense of urgency. What is the way forward now for CITES? In summary, CITES must now take a much broader look at the way it conducts its business and transform itself from a Convention of well-meaning scientists just looking at the biological and trade criteria of species to that of a Convention that is capable of making hard scientific, political and economic decisions on natural resources that meet both the national development goals of its members and the conservation goals of its mission. This would mean a closer understanding of and engagement with other international organizations that manage these resources – such as the RFMOs and ITTO – as well as the wider international processes that govern the wider economic and political decision-making processes of national governments – such as the WTO and Millennium Development Goals process. A more productive relationship also needs to be forged with CITES Secretariat, so as to enhance its role in guiding the Parties, further strengthen its esteem and credibility with the Parties and taking a structured and proactive approach to science, economics and politics in CITES. The recruitment of a new Secretary-General for CITES may present new opportunities in this regard.

Page 51

6. RECOMMENDATIONS The remaining question to answer now is: What is the way forward now for TRAFFIC?

One of TRAFFIC’s core functions is supporting the role of CITES in making sure that the international trade in wild species is both sustainable and conducted according to national and CITES trade controls. To do this effectively, TRAFFIC’s information and recommendations must be respected, valued and acted upon by CITES Parties, the Secretariat and other organisations. But is it sufficient, in light of the challenges outlined earlier, for that information and those recommendations to be just “based on sound and objective scientific advice and enforcement experience collected from around the world”?. TRAFFIC must clearly continue to support the review and evolution of CITES mechanisms at all levels, and to encourage their effective implementation. But the quote from the delegate from Ecuador above is telling: “The Japanese come to make business and the (United) States come to explain”. TRAFFIC has done an able job at explaining but perhaps needs to now look at how it can also seriously address the core ‘business’ of many CITES Parties: the business of national development and protection of important economic sectors. While TRAFFIC has been good at explaining the science behind its recommendations, more can perhaps be done in also addressing the socio-economic and political implications of those recommendations. As noted earlier, CITES must transform itself into a Convention that is capable of making hard scientific, political and economic decisions on natural resources that meet both the national development goals of its members and the conservation goals of its mission.

TRAFFIC must transform itself as well, to meet this new challenge. Figure IV below notes some of the strategic issues and questions that have been discussed in this Paper and which TRAFFIC must address in order to make CITES more relevant to the political and economic realities of today’s world. The TRAFFIC management must consider how to address these issues in four core areas of work:

Page 52

Figure IV

1. Programme and Work Planning

TRAFFIC will need to more effectively address economic and development goals (at both national and international levels) into its current and future programme and work planning processes, and the design and implementation of projects. For example, the TRAFFIC programme must pick up on the need to develop sustainable management models for Appendix II species to demonstrate that CITES can be practical, well-enforced and effective in its implementation on the ground. It is important for the relevance of the Convention and it is where TRAFFIC can really make a tangible difference in the areas of governance and socio-economic development.

2. Capacity building TRAFFIC will need to build more capacity within its network to seriously address policy work on economic and development issues – at the levels of the national and regional offices, as well as at TRAFFIC International. The potential for project proposals to like-minded governments and international organisations for the work outlined in this Paper must be explored, so resources can be mobilised to implement this work. Capacity-building with governments must also be enhanced to promote greater understanding of the provisions of the Convention, in particular the important role CITES can play in contributing to socio-

Page 53

economic development and the wise management of natural resources. This work can also serve as a well-structured feedback loop and forum for both collection and dissemination of information and bringing the local-to-global linkages to and from our audiences and partners.

3. National outreach and advocacy In the form of informal or formal meetings, or workshops, national and regional TRAFFIC offices should engage with their respective governments as soon as possible to: (i) Identify national governments that were key opinion formers at the CoP (ii) Seek their perspectives on what they see as the strategic challenges that emerged from CITES CoP (iii) Discuss how they see CITES as changing and transforming itself in order to meet those challenges (iv) Discuss ways in which the government will address these challenges and what they see as priorities for

change (v) Discuss the potential role of TRAFFIC in this process and ways in which TRAFFIC can provide

technical assistance and support to the governments concerned. Working with the regional programmes, TRAFFIC International can coordinate this work as part of its overall policy and advocacy approach and provide regional offices with a consultative platform from which to build responses to the variety of feedback and positions that are received.

4. International outreach and advocacy

Similarly, efforts must be made at the international level to seek the perspectives of relevant international organizations on their perspectives on the challenges that emerged from CITES CoP, how to address these challenges and the potential role that TRAFFIC can play in this process. These include engagement with (i) The CITES Secretariat, and in particular the new Secretary-General of CITES (ii) Relevant intergovernmental organisations such as the FAO (iii) Regional fisheries management organisations (iv) ITTO and other international or regional timber organisations (v) Regional economic and political structures such as ASEAN, the EU Commission, SADC, COMIFAC,

SAARC , Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization and the Arab League, The potential for greater engagement with other key economic and developmental organisations, such as the WTO and UNDP, and regional institutions (such as SAARC, SADC, SAARC, ACTO, ASEAN and the Arab league) must be explored and priorities for future activities identified, as well as any implications for the skill sets and staff resources needed within TRAFFIC to engage with these fora.

Page 54

The IUCN Bulletin

The species tradeCITES in the new millennium

World Conservation

Number

32002

2 World Conservation 3/2002

The Species TradeCITES in the new millennium

CONTENTS

Cover photograph, centre: a Zulu diviner (isangoma) collecting medicinal tubers inmontane grassland in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa (A.B. Cunningham). Side bands,left from top: feathers of scarlet macaw (WWF-Canon/Anthony B. Rath), Cubancrocodile (WWF-Canon/Michel Roggo), Cuban painted tree snail (WWF-Canon/MichelRoggo), Apollo butterfly (WWF-Canon/Hartmut Jungius), unidentified cactus (WWF-Canon/Anthony B. Rath). Right from top: bark of monkey puzzle tree (WWF-Canon/Edward Parker), hard coral (WWF-Canon/Sylvia Earl), Johnston’s chameleon (WWF-Canon/Martin Harvey), spring adonis (IUCN/Wendy Strahm), African elephant (WWF-Canon/Martin Harvey).

Why CITES?

3 A ‘Magna Carta’ for wildlife YolandaKakabadse

4 Growth and adaptation of aConvention David Brackett

6 A thumbnail guide to CITES AlisonRosser and Sarah Ferris

7 Never a dull moment Interview withWillem Wijnstekers, Secretary-General ofCITES

Making it work

9 Sharpening CITES’ teethTomme Rosanne Young

11 SSC and CITES: change andadaptation David Brackett

13 UNEP-WCMC: for the recordGerardo Fragoso

Wildlife and livelihoods

14 Rural economies: cashing in TeresaMulliken

16 In the soup: the Asian turtle crisisPeter Paul van Dijk

Looking ahead

30 Choosing the best routeSteven Broad

31 Trade tracking in the 21st centuryStephen V. Nash

32 The future of CITES: a personalperspective Jim Armstrong

35 Between mind and heartAchim Steiner

17 Medicinal plants: just what thedoctor ordered! Uwe Schippmann

17 East Asia: a ray of hopeCraig Kirkpatrick

18 From the shop window to thefrying pan, molluscs mean businessMary Seddon

19 Bushmeat: recipe for extinctionRob Barnett

20 Getting your goat: trophy huntingfor mountain ungulatesMarco Festa Bianchet

Marine resourceson the menu

22 Fisheries: finding the right balanceKevern Cochrane

23 The view from Madagascar ClaudineRamiarison and Andrew Cooke

25 Sturgeon make a comebackCaroline Raymakers

26 Pregnant males set a precedentfor CITES Amanda Vincent

Regional perspectives

27 Good management makes goodneighbours Malan Lindeque

28 Regional groupings: the EUexperience Christoph Bail

29 Central America: speaking withone voice Mauricio Castro Salazar

WWF/KLEIN & HUBERTPETER PAUL VAN DIJK EDWARD G. LINES/SHEDD AQUARIUM

WWF-CANON/MARTIN HARVEY

WWF-CANON/HARTMUT JUNGIUS

USFWS/J&K HOLLINGSWORTH

World Conservation

(formerly the IUCN Bulletin)

A publication ofIUCN – The World Conservation Union

Rue Mauverney 28CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 999 0000Fax: +41 (22) 999 0002

Website: http://iucn.org

Editor: Nikki MeithContributing editor: Peter Hulm

CITES issue was producedin partnership with

Contributing editors:Alison Rosser and Maija Sirola

Executive Editor: Elaine ShaughnessyManaging Editor: Deborah Murith

© 2002 International Unionfor Conservation of Nature

and Natural ResourcesVolume 33, No. 3, 2002

ISSN: 1027-0965Cover concept: L’IV COM Sàrl

Design/layout: Maximedia LtdProduced by:

IUCN Publishing DivisionGland, Switzerland and

Cambridge, UKPrinted by: Sadag Imprimerie

Opinions expressed in this publicationdo not necessarily reflect

the official viewsof IUCN or its members.

Annual subscriptions(3 issues per year):

$45 (non-members)including airmail postage

For subscription information andaddress changes, contact:[email protected]

Please address all other queries to:[email protected]

or at the address above.

3World Conservation 3/2002

For almost three decades the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora hasbeen regulating trade in species of conservation concern,including snakes, butterflies, cactus, seahorses, snails andspiders – as well as the more familiar elephants, rhinos andtigers – whose survival is threatened by international trade.

By most accounts, the treaty has been a resoundingsuccess: it is among the largest conservation agreementsin existence, with 160 Parties to date. Under its protection,such species as the vicuña, the Nile crocodile and thewhite rhino have increased in population.

But the world has changed a great deal since CITES wasadopted, and the Convention continues to evolve to keeppace. The forthcoming 12th meeting of the Conference ofthe Parties (COP) in Santiago, Chile (3–15 November 2002)presents an opportunity to consider the past, present andfuture of CITES, as seen through the eyes of its staff, itsenforcers, and its conservation partners.

A ‘Magna Carta’ for wildlifeYolanda Kakabadse

CITES?Why

The Union considers itself one of the closest partnersof CITES. Much of our work – particularly in the realmof species conservation – is directly or indirectly re-lated to its everyday implementation.

The idea behind CITES originated at the 1963 IUCNGeneral Assembly in Nairobi. IUCN members wereconcerned at the damage that exploitation for inter-national trade was having on wild species, and calledfor an “international convention on regulation of ex-port, transit and import of rare or threatened wildlifespecies or their skins and trophies”.

For the remainder of the decade IUCN’s legal team,led by Wolfgang and Françoise Burhenne, preparedsuccessive drafts and circulated them to governmentsand non-governmental organizations.

Another aspect of IUCN’s work at this time, theRed Data books, influenced the process: the originaltreaty drafts were based on the idea that wildlife tradewould be controlled on the basis of lists of threatenedspecies to be drawn up and regularly updated by ex-perts. However, some of the big wildlife exportingcountries – mainly developing countries but also theUS – objected, saying that each state should have itsown list. A compromise was found and presented to

the 1973 Conference of Plenipotentiaries held at thePentagon in Washington, D.C.

The resulting ‘Washington Convention’, signed by80 countries on 3 March 1973, was called a‘Magna Carta for wildlife’. It entered into force on 1July 1975, and today the number of Parties is 160 andgrowing.

UNEP, freshly created at the 1972 Stockholm Con-ference, contracted IUCN to provide secretariat serv-ices and facilities through 1984, when UNEP took over.

Today the Union’s role in CITES is more scientificthan legal, yet we still take pride in our contribution tothe Convention’s birth.

This special issue of World Conservation will look atCITES as it operates today, and consider how it couldbe better. In it we will see further evidence of howCITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity, IUCN’sown Programme and those of its Commissions, andindeed all the major international agents of environ-mental conservation are beginning to gather on com-mon ground, find common cause, and pursuecommon goals.

Yolanda Kakabadse isPresident of IUCN.

The green tree python Morelia viridis, an arboreal rainforestspecies in Australia, was listed on CITES Appendix II in 1977.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/MA

RTI

N H

AR

VE

Y


WHY CITES?

From the largest mammal in existence, the blue whale,to the dainty swallowtail butterfly, from the rarest or-chids on the planet to the mighty mahogany and ramintrees, CITES regulates trade in a great variety of spe-cies. All have one factor in common – the interna-tional community has decided to cooperate to ensuretrade is not detrimental to the survival of species.

Now 27 years old, CITES is one of the older andarguably more successful multilateral environmentalagreements. Although established some time beforecontemporary views on international governance andresource ownership came into vogue, CITES was none-theless far-reaching in outlook.

The Preamble establishes the principle that all na-tional governments have sovereign rights and respon-sibilities over their wild species and equally thatinternational cooperation is essential for effectivemanagement of international trade. In addition toappreciating the beauty of wild species, the draftersalso recognised their increasing value. Perhaps mostimportant in this era of conservation consciousness,when sustainable development and benefit-sharingare pillars of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, the objective of CITES is to ensure that any

exploitation of wild species for trade is sustainable forgenerations to come.

Hard law, soft law

Species are included in three Appendices to the Con-vention, which provide different levels of protectionfrom trade (see page 6). These are amended at thebiennial meetings of the Conference of the Partiesand result in the most substantive decisions that aretaken, as they are enshrined in ‘hard law’.

In addition to the amendments, the COP also dis-cusses changes to its resolutions and decisions, al-though as ‘soft law’ some discretion can be exercisedin implementing these texts.

CITES has broad global coverage, with 160 Partiesat the last count. With regional representation on com-mittees, the Convention brings together a wide rangeof views on the best approaches to regulating exploi-tation for international trade so that it does not threatenspecies. The Parties overtly recognised the benefits oftrade in 1984, and this approach underpins many ofthe sustainable use programmes that the Conventionhelps to regulate.

Non-detrimental trade

According to the Convention, any trade in AppendixII species (see page 6) should be non-detrimental(see box, page 5), but over the years some Partieshave had to struggle to fulfil this requirement. Conse-quently, a review of trade in Appendix II species wasinstituted to assist Parties in managing tradesustainably. This Significant Trade Review (see box,page 5) allows the Plants and Animals Committees tohighlight specific problems that individual Parties mayhave in trying to determine whether that trade is sus-tainable and thus make targeted recommendationsto particular Parties. These recommendations mayinclude, for instance, limited trade bans or restric-tions in the volume of trade and can be a useful tool tohelp a Party get its trade in a particular taxon onto asustainable footing.

Unforeseen consequences

The ability to use trade restrictions is one of CITES’strengths, by giving it a means to enforce compliance.

But some trade restrictions have had unforeseenconsequences, as when trade has switched to a simi-lar taxon or to specimens from a different range state,or when it encouraged ex situ captive breeding/artifi-cial propagation that did not provide benefits to therange states. After 10 years of operation, a review ofthe effectiveness of this process would help to make iteven better at helping Parties meet their obligations.

Inclusion in Appendix I has been a mixed successfor a number of species, and in cases where demand

Growth and adaptation of a ConventionDavid Brackett

A mixed record

Spix’s macaw Cyanopsitta spixii was declared extinct in the wild in1999, despite being fully protected by CITES since 1975. Over thisperiod, more than 60 birds have been successfully bred in captivityunder CITES coordination. The tiger is teetering on the brink withsuccessive resolutions urging Parties to take further measures. Rhinopoaching remained high for a decade after all species were includedin Appendix I, but for the last 8–10 years the combination of AppendixI listings and investment in small rhino sanctuaries has prevented theresurgence of high levels of poaching. Populations of white rhino haveincreased substantially.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/RO

GE

R L

EG

UE

N


is high, inclusion in Appendix I may be too slow tostop the downward trend of populations. However,in general we can only speculate about what mighthave happened if CITES were not in place.

A major drawback of Appendix I is that once a spe-cies has been included in Appendix I there is no proc-ess under the Convention to review the management ofthat species. The reasoning is that by protecting thespecies from international trade its status will at leastremain stable if not improve. But many species, evenif not affected by illegal international trade, are useddomestically as a source of food, medicine, etc., andso their status may well continue to decline.

Collaborative management

In recent years CITES has encouraged more collabo-rative management, first through the elephant andhawksbill turtles Dialogue Processes (see box)through which range states have been drawn togetherto discuss trade in particular taxa. A second examplearose from responses to the significant trade review:caviar-producing Caspian range states committed toa joint management plan for the shared resources ofthe Caspian Sea (see page 25).

A third example has been the convening of work-shops on species which, although not yet listed in theAppendices, are causing concern to CITES Parties.These include species as diverse as birdsnest soupswiftlets, sharks, seahorses, Asian turtles, and animalshunted for bushmeat.

Thus CITES is evolving to meet 21st century re-quirements for more collaborative management atthe ecosystem level, and is addressing the issue ofsustainability more proactively than before.

David Brackett is Chair of theIUCN Species Survival Commission.

Non-detriment Findings by CITES Scientific Authorities arerequired before export permits can be issued for Appendix IIspecies. This process is meant to ensure that trade in thesespecies is non-detrimental to their survival and, by implica-tion, sustainable.

The Significant Trade Review is a detailed technical reviewof Appendix II species for which trade levels may be a problem.The review includes conservation status, management andthreats; monitoring and reporting of trade; and the effects ofCITES implementation. It is followed by the development ofrecommendations for remedial action.

The CITES Dialogue Process provides governments thatare range states for a particular CITES-listed species with theopportunity to exchange views in a meeting free from exter-nal pressure. With the close involvement of IUCN/SSC per-sonnel, Specialist Groups, and TRAFFIC, the dialoguemeetings are held to review the most current information avail-able on key trade issues, find compromise and consensus,and communicate the results clearly to the CITES Parties.

Some success stories

Under CITES protection white rhinos Ceratotherium simum have increasedfrom a few hundred individuals to more than 10,000.

International trade in lemurs is strictly regulated byCITES. Today they are relatively safe from hunters,although deforestation remains a serious threat.Pictured: Verreaux’s sifaka Propithecus verreauxi inMadagascar’s Berenty Reserve.

Before snowdrops Galanthus spp. were listed in 1989there was a large unsustainable trade. Today there ismuch-improved monitoring and regulation, especially inthe main source country, Turkey. Pictured: Galanthuselwesii from Turkey’s Taurus Mountains.

WHY CITES?

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/MA

RTI

N H

AR

VE

Y

WW

F/FR

ÉD

Y M

ER

CA

Y

RG

B K

EW

/NO

EL

MC

GO

UG

H


A thumbnail guide to CITESAlison Rosser and Sarah Ferris

CITES is administered by a Secretariat based in Geneva, Switzerland. The Secretariat plays a coordinating,advisory and servicing role in the working of the Convention. Its staff carry out the duties assigned to them bythe text of the Convention, and the resolutions and decisions of the Conference of the Parties. There are threetechnical committees:ä The Animals and Plants Committees deal with scientific matters referred to them by the COP and the

Standing Committee.ä The Nomenclature Committee rules on issues of CITES taxonomy.

National arrangements

Within each Party, CITES is administered by a national Management Authority responsible for issuing permitsand certificates, and for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Convention. A national ScientificAuthority in each country advises the Management Authority on technical matters relating to the sustainabilityof trade in particular species.

The Appendices

The Convention’s three Appendices lie at the heart of CITES opera-tions, by naming the species under its protection.

Appendix I species are those threatened with extinction and are pro-hibited from commercial international trade, although captive bred orartificially propagated specimens and personal effects have specificexemptions/provisions.

Appendix II species are not necessarily threatened with extinction,but may become so unless subject to strict regulation and monitor-ing. It includes the majority of listed species. It also helps ensure thattrade in these species is sustainable. Before trade can be sanctionedby the exporting Management Authority, the Scientific Authority mustdetermine that the trade will not be detrimental to the survival of thespecies (Non-detriment Findings: see page 5).

Appendix III species are those that national jurisdictions wish tosafeguard, and for which they require the assistance of other CITESParties to monitor trade. The inclusion of mahogany in 1998 hasshown that Appendix III can be very useful in terms of monitoringtrade, provided that Parties comply with its provisions.

Meetings of the Conference of Parties (COP)The purpose of the COP is several-fold and includes:ä amending the Appendices of the Convention;ä reviewing implementation of the Convention; andä considering any reports or recommendations of the Secretariat or any other Party.

The COPs are held approximately every 2½ years and last for 10 working days, with the 12th COP scheduledfor Chile in November 2002. Observers include intergovernmental organizations, United Nations bodies,representatives of other international agreements, non-governmental organizations and countries not yet partyto the Convention.

Before being dealt with by the Parties, most issues are first dealt with by Committees. Committee I dealswith all amendment proposals and other biological issues. Committee II deals particularly with issues relatingto implementation and enforcement.

Amendments to the Appendices may involve the addition or removal of a species from the Appendices or thetransfer of species between the Appendices. Amendment proposals can themselves be amended during theCOP to clarify the intent or to restrict the scope of the proposal. Parties credentials must be accepted for theirvote to count and a 2/3 majority of Parties voting is required. Votes may be taken by show of hands, roll call orsecret ballot.

A Resolution by the COP essentially provides guidance in interpreting the text of the Convention and aims toimprove and strengthen the Convention. Resolutions are usually quite long-lasting. There are currently 77Resolutions in force. A Decision tends to be more short-term and reflects the working programmes of thevarious Committees or Parties between the COPs.

Alison Rosser is IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme Officer.Sarah Ferris is IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme Intern.

The cycads are an ancient group of seed plants. While onceabundant, they are now all listed on the CITES Appendices.Pictured: a cycad in flower, Northern Territories, Australia.

WW

F/K

LEIN

& H

UB

ER

T

WHY CITES?


WHY CITES?

Never a dull momentAn interview with Willem Wijnstekers,Secretary-General of CITES

Question: What is the most outstanding feature ofthe Convention, and what have been its greatest suc-cesses?

Willem Wijnstekers: What has always surprised mehas been the ability of CITES to adapt to changes inthe way people think about conservation, to chang-ing conservation needs of the species it covers, tonew trade patterns, and the many other develop-ments since it was signed now almost thirty yearsago.

As for its successes, my top choice is the Conven-tion itself: CITES is the international legal frameworkthat would need to be invented today if it had notexisted already. Many wildlife consumer nationswould have taken the most disparate measures torestrict imports, and you can just imagine the addednumber of bilateral trade issues the World TradeOrganization would have to address.

CITES provides the platform for its 160 Parties toagree democratically on internationally applicabletrade measures. It has been enormously productiveand efficient in that respect. There are something like500,000 trade transactions annually under CITES pro-visions which lay down standard requirements, con-ditions and procedures for international trade in theinterest of the conservation of no less than 5000 ani-mal species and some 25,000 plant species.

How has the relationship between TRAFFIC, IUCN,SSC and CITES changed over the years?

IUCN, its Species Survival Commission and TRAF-FIC have from the very early days of CITES been itsclosest partners. Through the years our relationshiphas strengthened and matured. It is very importantfor an agreement such as CITES to be able to rely onobjective, scientific advice and supportive research.

What is the most exciting thing to happen in the Con-vention’s history?

First of all, a growing number of Parties are interact-ing continuously for the conservation of so many ani-mal and plant species. Of course these interactionsare highest during our two-week meetings of the Con-ference of the Parties (COP), the next one of which isimminent. These meetings, believe me, are very ex-citing. I have been to quite a few boring internationalmeetings over the last 25 years, but at a CITES COPthere is never a dull moment!

Another exciting feature is the enormous interestof civil society and very active participation of non-governmental organizations from all over the worldand with the most diverse areas of interest you can

imagine. It is surprising that in spite of big differencesof opinion between countries and among NGOs andin spite of sometimes heated and emotional debates,CITES meetings take place in a great atmosphere.

Many CITES decisions are exciting because of theirdirect impact on conservation and trade policies: theprohibition of commercial trade in wildlife commodi-ties, the restriction of international trade under quotasystems, or – unfortunately less frequent – the re-laxation of such restrictions because the conserva-tion status of a species has much improved.

What species survive today that would not have, hadit not been for CITES?

That’s very hard to say, because CITES is only part ofthe picture – sometimes small, sometimes big – sinceit addresses only international trade aspects. It can dolittle for species that are not commercially traded,but threatened as a result, for example, of habitatloss.

There are so many factors that influence the con-servation of species that no single organization canclaim success or be blamed for failure. But it is cer-tainly true to say that for species subject to high vol-umes of legal and/or illegal international trade, CITESis beneficial and in many cases a determining con-servation tool.

Where has CITES failed to deliver its promises andwhat can be done about it?

I don’t think CITES has ever made any promises. It is atool like any other, and you do not become a greattennis player just because you buy yourself a fineracket.

What I find disappointing, however, is the lack ofpolitical commitment in many countries that are a

The provisions for ranching of crocodilians is regarded as one of thegreat successes of the Convention. Pictured: researcher measuring acrocodile at a farm in Venezuela.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/JU

AN

PR

ATG

INE

STO

S


Party to CITES. This leads to administrations unableto properly use the tool handed to them when theyjoined CITES. The human and financial resources madeavailable are insufficient, and not only in developingcountries. This affects negatively the legislative proc-ess and the capacity to implement and enforce theprovisions of the Convention, both from a technicaland a scientific point of view.

A directly related problem is the lack of financialresources that would allow the CITES Secretariat, to-gether with partners such as IUCN and TRAFFIC, tocarry out the many tasks it has been given by the Par-ties, and that have been made subject to the avail-ability of external funding rather than provided for inthe Convention’s budget. This creates false expecta-tions and frustration, in developing countries in par-ticular.

What are the burning issues CITES faces today?

The number and shape of burning issues has differedgreatly over the years. The most publicized andlonger-term issues come to mind first, such as rhi-nos, elephants, whales, sea turtles, tigers and stur-geon. These and other issues differ greatly from theproblems that led the 1963 IUCN General Assemblyto call for the adoption of an international conven-tion on trade in rare or threatened species or theirskins and trophies.

What has not been tackled so far, or tackled insuf-ficiently, is how CITES can be used in relation tointernational trade in species of high economic value– for example, the timber trade and commercial fish-eries. Where the latter is concerned, I am glad we havemade excellent progress concerning the conservationof sturgeon and the reduction of illegal trade in caviar.This clearly shows how CITES can have a positive effect,and I hope this success will reduce the suspicion

and doubts of people involved in similar large-scalecommercial activities.

What about CITES has surprised you?

What surprises me is that no matter what develop-ments in international trade in wild animals or plantshave occurred, CITES has always found a way to ad-dress them in a practical way. But what surprises memost – in the light of what I said earlier about theneed for increased political commitment – is the levelof dedication of so many people all over the worldinvolved in protecting wildlife in very difficult andoften dangerous circumstances.

What do you find most difficult in implementing theConvention?

Probably having to determine when a certain level ofinternational trade has a negative effect on the con-servation of a species. For most species there is aserious lack of scientific information, and that is thearea where CITES depends most on partners such asIUCN.

What do you see in your crystal ball? Where willCITES be in 10 years?

In 10 years time CITES will probably have full globalmembership and will not have lost any of its relevancefor species conservation. Again, CITES is very flex-ible and adaptable to emerging issues and it will cer-tainly be able to cope with future developments. Theopportunities offered by the continuously develop-ing electronic and multimedia technologies may yethave a lot in store for us, in terms of streamliningand simplifying the permit-based CITES control sys-tems.

Two years ago the Parties to CITES adopted a Stra-tegic Vision through 2005, and I hope that most of itsobjectives will have been achieved by then, or at leastby 10 years from now. That, however, requires farmore resources than are currently made available atboth national and international levels.

If you were granted a single wish relating to thefuture of CITES, what would it be?

International trade may just be one item on the longlist of environmental issues with which individualcountries and the international community have tocope, but if I could have one wish, CITES would finallyget the high priority it deserves. �

ww

w.c

ite

s.o

rg

On the CITES horizon is the question of how it can be used in relation tointernational trade in species of high economic value, such as timber. Pictured:logging camp in a mahogany forest on the Peru-Bolivian border.

Contact CITESVisit http://www.cites.org or write to:

The CITES Secretariat15 chemin des Anémones, 1219 Châtelaine

Geneva, Switzerland

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/AN

DR

E B

AR

TSC

HI


Making it

In its first quarter-century of operation, CITEShas demonstrated some real success atcontrolling a major catalyst of speciesdestruction: international trade in wildlife, partsand products. This success is founded in largemeasure on strong and effective monitoring,enforcement and oversight at all levels. Thenext quarter-century, however, already presentsnew challenges especially with regard toenforcement. This article examines some ofCITES’ enforcement successes to date, and thenature of the future challenges to be faced.

Sharpening CITES’ teethTomme Rosanne Young

arising both organically (within the Convention itself)and externally.

Listing explosion

Dealing with more than 30,000 species of plants andanimals in Appendix I and II clearly places an extra-ordinary demand on each country’s effort to imple-ment the Convention. Even with whole specimens, itis often difficult to equip officials with the know-howto recognise whether it is a listed species. Where in-ternational trade involves a “part, product or deriva-tive” of such a specimen, capacity to identify it becomeseven more complex and demanding.

Yet trade continues, and can be greatly disadvan-taged by delays. Clearly enforcing officers need ac-cess to experts, databases, identification techniquesand equipment, as well as training in the various CITESprocesses and permit systems.

Focus on controlled trade

Over 90% of CITES species are listed in Appendix II,and as a result, CITES is increasingly focused on con-trolled sustainable trade rather than prohibition.

It is always more complicated and costly (in bothhuman and financial terms) to ‘control’ somethingthan to prohibit it. Implementing officials in receivingcountries must evaluate the legitimacy of export per-mits presented, as well as the factors underlying thatpermit’s issuance. Each Party must maintain con-stant awareness of species numbers and status, andof the various side-effects of species trade, in order to

CITES provides a ‘double-edged sword’ to combat il-legal or destructive wildlife trade. Its mandatory con-trols on trade are imposed both when the specimenor product leaves the country of origin and when itarrives at an interim or final destination.

In practice, this approach is a major contributor toCITES’ success. Very promptly after the Convention’sentry into force, several major importer-countriesimposed strict import controls. Their action and itsimplementation had an immediate impact on theamount of trade, even though many of the exportingcountries were much slower in implementing theConvention.

A second reason for CITES’ effectiveness has beenits Conference of the Parties (COP), which has notonly continuously reviewed the lists of species andthe procedures of the Convention, but has stood as aguardian of the Convention’s process, censuring Par-ties that do not comply with their CITES obligations.CITES-related trade with such parties may be restrictedand, perhaps worse, the Party’s reputation amongecotourists, donors, and others may be negatively af-fected. The value of censure as CITES’ primary en-forcement tool, sometimes disparaged, has provenquite significant.

CITES was adopted in 1973 as a matter of urgency.A perilous situation faced many rare, important, andvaluable species. Three decades later, however, theConvention must evolve and address the ongoing, non-urgent but still important, issues of the times – to liveup to its potential as a ‘sustainable development’ con-vention. The forces mandating this evolution are

work

Confiscated elephant tusks and rhino horn at the customs of SchipholAirport, Amsterdam.

WW

F/R

OB

WE

BS

TER


participate effectively in setting and implementing in-ternational quotas.

Demand for the rare

Demand for the rare is a major challenge facing CITES,whether it involves trophy hunting of species facingextinction in the wild or harvesting of products whoseappeal is their perceived rarity.

Examples of the latter include ivory and tortoise-shell, which were originally in demand for their physi-cal characteristics of carvability and plasticity. Fewsubstances could be worked artistically and still pos-sess the hardness, colour and resilience of ivory. Simi-larly tortoiseshell could be worked and moulded intomany items of value (adornments, dressing table items,etc.). However, progress has eliminated this value,and modern plastics have become the chief competi-tors of tortoiseshell. Today’s demand for ivory andtortoiseshell appears to be exclusively a function oftheir rarity.

Economic principles recognise that the harder it isto fulfil demand, the higher the price. Where supply iscontrolled or curtailed, the price will continue to spiralas long as demand exceeds supply. And therein liesthe seeds of one of the most important challenges forCITES.

The new criminality

In recent years, an alarming shift has becomeapparent – smugglers and criminals who have, inthe past, focused on commodities such as drugs andstolen artworks are turning instead to trade in listed

animals and plants. Sometimes, the black-marketvalue of these commodities is astounding; but evenwhere it is not, the profits of this trade can besubstantial.

The pernicious inducement to criminals to trade inspecies arises because the penalties involved are of-ten very low. In a recent, non-systematic evaluationof CITES violations in the EU, it was found that theincidence of capture of repeat offenders carryingcommercial quantities of specimens (in some caseshundreds of live or preserved amphibians or birds) isincreasing.

Only a small percentage of these offenders are im-prisoned, and the financial penalties imposed are usu-ally less than the value of specimens involved. Bycomparison with the treatment accorded other typesof offenders this slap on the wrist is almost laughable.

The heightened demand for wildlife products con-tributes to spiralling increases in their value, so thatmany smugglers can afford a level of technology thatis unavailable to officials combating wildlife crime.

Looking for answers

In the long run, the solutions for CITES’ new chal-lenges will not be simple. Simply tightening the con-trols on species movements and increasing penaltieswill not be enough. The most proactive and inde-pendent judges will rarely assess high penalty levels,even when the law allows it, unless the majority of thelocal, law-abiding citizenry feels that the offence‘deserves’ them. Priority must be given to developingmore effective means of influencing public opinion,both to affect demand, and to support the impositionof appropriate penalty levels, particularly in import-ing countries.

Sharpening both edges

Ultimately, more than this is needed. Both edges ofthe CITES sword must be sharpened. On the exportside, Convention processes are already giving in-creased attention to the sustainable use of AppendixII species as a national resource. Once legal marketsdevelop at rational levels, the spiralling inflationcaused by unfulfilled demand may reach a ‘steadystate’, which can begin to remove the incentive forcriminal trading, at least to a level that it can be prop-erly policed.

These efforts complement, and are complementedby, CITES’ recognition of the relationship betweenspecies listing and the conservation of non-listed spe-cies and their habitats (through, for example, the CITESlisting criteria and the Significant Trade processes).

Beyond this, CITES can be viewed within the con-text of many global and regional conventions thataddress habitat and species issues. Together they willhelp create a rational world market for wildlife prod-ucts – and give CITES its proper position as the pre-eminent ‘sustainable use convention’.

Tomme Rosanne Young is Senior Legal Officer at theIUCN Environmental Law Centre.

The permit system

Appendix II listing does not bar international trade in a species, butto trade in them the exporter must secure a government-issued per-mit which certifies that the specimens to be traded were legally ob-tained, and that exporting them will not be detrimental to the survivalof the species.

Mongolian nomad ‘ger’ or tent in an Ulaan Baatar museum, covered by morethan one hundred snow leopard skins. Although pelts are no longer used forthis purpose, illegal hunting remains a significant factor contributing to thecritical status of this and other indigenous species.

DO

N M

ER

TON

MAKING IT WORK

SSC and CITES: change and adaptation

David Brackett

The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) hascontributed to the success of CITES since the veryinception of the Convention, by providing informa-tion on the status of species listed in the Appendicesor threatened by international trade.

In 1987, the first reviews of the amendment pro-posals appeared, now known as the IUCN Analysesfor short. These are currently produced by the IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme (see below), collect-ing biological inputs from SSC experts and others, andthe TRAFFIC Network (see box, page 12), collectinginformation on trade related aspects.

The Trade Specialist Group (TSG), which laterevolved into the Wildlife Trade Programme, startedthis review process in 1987 for COP6. An independ-ent review of the Analyses after COP11 concluded thatthey are highly valued by the Parties. In particular, thereputation of IUCN and TRAFFIC for producing ob-jective work is important in ensuring the credibility ofthe Analyses.

In response to requests from the Parties, the Wild-life Trade Programme also continues to update andpublish CITES: a Conservation Tool, a guide to theprocess of listing species in the Appendices that isnow in its seventh edition.

Expert advice

Many Specialist Group experts attend the COPs toprovide advice and expertise, either through the IUCNdelegation, or in many cases as members of Partydelegations. Over the years, these have included PeterJackson, former Chair of the Cat Specialist Group,well-known in CITES tiger negotiations, and HollyDublin of the African Elephant Specialist Group, whobrought scientific rigour to the CITES Elephant Dia-logues. Who can forget Harry Messel’s commandingpresence and his group’s innovative approach tocrocodilian conservation, tirelessly carried forwardby Perran Ross as the group’s Executive Officer; orJack Musick and Sarah Fowler’s contributions to plac-ing sharks on the CITES radar screen; Graeme Webb’sand Jon Hutton’s insistence that CITES address theneed for conservation and sustainable development?The Medicinal Plant Specialist Group, although a rela-tive newcomer, has made its presence felt through itsfirst Chair, Uwe Schippmann. Bertrand von Arx, Chairof the Carnivorous Plants Specialist Group, Vice Chairof the CITES Plants Committee, and member of theSSC Plant Conservation Committee, epitomizes theclose relationship of many SSC members to CITES.

The new criteria

In 1994, in line with SSC’s efforts to bring science intoCITES’ decision-making, SSC members from a rangeof taxonomic Specialist Groups, led by Simon Stuart

and Georgina Mace, helped begin the development ofobjective and transparent Criteria for the listing ofspecies in the CITES Appendices. While the Partieseventually adopted criteria that were only loosely basedon the advice of IUCN, the change marked a majorstep towards more rigorous decision-making. Thesecriteria are now due for review at COP 12. It is impor-tant that Parties consider the impacts of furtherchanges on the entire range of species that have to beassessed.

Wildlife Trade Programme

The IUCN/SSC Wildlife Trade Programme was set up over 12 yearsago to improve SSC’s scientific input to CITES. In recent years itsfocus has broadened to encompass a wide range of trade issues.

The programme has worked with SSC Specialist Groups to iden-tify species threatened by trade and to recommend actions to ad-dress these threats. This information is relayed to decision-makerswithin the international conservation community.

The Programme works in collaboration with its partner organiza-tion TRAFFIC.

Non-detrimentfindings

In 1998, recognising theimportance of makingnon-detriment findings(see page 5), the WildlifeTrade Programme in col-laboration with the CITESSecretariat drew togetherSSC experts, and scientificauthority staff from arange of Parties for aworkshop to developguidance on reachingsuch findings. The result-ing Checklist is now being

Stars of species conservation: (above) Bertrandvon Arx, Chair of the IUCN/SSC CarnivorousPlants Specialist Group and (below) HollyDublin, Chair of the African Elephant SpecialistGroup, with a Kenyan elephant researcher,Mr Kennedy.

IUC

N/W

EN

DY

STR

AH

MW

WF-

CA

NO

N/J

OH

N E

. N

EW

BY



tested as part of a training package developed by theCITES Secretariat.

Changing priorities

CITES does need to change to adapt to the 21st cen-tury. More attention should be paid to evaluating theimpact of trade regulation on people’s livelihoods, andto the consequences of trade restrictions in channel-ling trade from South to North.

Unfortunately, enforcement of regulations is oftenlow on the list of national priorities for many coun-tries. Given these circumstances, it may be time foran evaluation of the impacts of various CITES proc-esses and an exploration of the use of incentives as amore creative way forward.

That said, much of CITES’ strength lies in the coop-erative ability of Parties to encourage better manage-ment, either through regional collaboration in themanagement of shared resources such as the Caspiansturgeon stocks, or national management by impos-ing trade restrictions when necessary. Working withthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), CITEScan begin to encourage a more holistic approach toensure that international trade is non-detrimental tothe survival of species. The recent adoption by CBDof its Global Plant Strategy recognises the role of CITESin this regard.

Up-to-the-minute data

IUCN/SSC is entering a new era through developmentof our Species Information Service, an electronic in-formation management system to assist SpecialistGroups collect and disseminate up-to-the-minute sta-tus information. Collaborating with TRAFFIC, we aimto develop a trade module to supplement the biologi-cal status information.

With these scientific tools SSC can continue to con-tribute to CITES’ efforts to gauge the effectiveness ofits monitoring and enforcement activities.

David Brackett is Chair of the IUCN Species SurvivalCommission. Visit http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/

TRAFFIC

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network,works to ensure that trade in wild plants andanimals is not a threat to the conservation ofnature. TRAFFIC is a joint programme of WWFand IUCN.

It was founded in the mid-1970s to gatherand analyse wildlife trade data and identify il-legal trade and assist in the implementation ofCITES. John A. Burton, its first Chair, was in-strumental in laying the foundations of the or-ganization, raising funds and assembling staff.Since then, TRAFFIC has developed its role inaddressing wildlife trade issues in a wider con-text, including major commercial sectors suchas fisheries and timber trade and a wide rangeof regional and local issues.

Over a quarter of a century, TRAFFIC hasdeveloped from a single office into a global net-work of 23 offices in eight regional programmesaround the world.

SSC formally recognises TRAFFIC as its pri-mary source of expertise on trade data, andTRAFFIC recognises SSC as its primary sourceof expertise on the biological status of speciesin trade. By combining the data produced bythe two organizations, the impact of trade onwild species can be assessed.

For more on the history of TRAFFIC network,visit http://www.traffic.org/25/network1.htm

The second edition of Crocodiles. Status Survey andConservation Action Plan (1998) is now available fromthe World Conservation Bookstore.

CITES: a Conservation Tool, edited by Alison Rosser,Mandy Haywood and Donna Harris, is a guide to theprocess of listing species in the Appendices. Theseventh edition (2001) is now available from the WorldConservation Bookstore.

For a full list of IUCN/SSC Action Plans and informationabout the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, visithttp://www. iucn.org/themes/ssc/

A TRAFFIC officer inspects confiscated goods in Amsterdam.

Available from IUCN:

WW

F/R

OB

WE

BS

TER


The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre(UNEP-WCMC) has more than 25 years’ experiencein monitoring trade in endangered species of wildlife.

Under an agreement with the CITES Secretariat,the Centre keeps trade records of CITES-listed spe-cies reported by the Parties in their annual reports.Information is also received in the form of copies ofexport permits sent to the CITES Secretariat for veri-fication.

The resulting computer database is unique andcurrently holds over 4.7 million records on trade inwildlife species and their derivative products.

The information dates from 1975, when a mere 148trade records were reported, to the present, and isconstantly being updated as further annual reportsare received. Since 1986 more than 200,000 traderecords have been reported annually. In addition tothe trade records themselves, the database holds some40,000 scientific names and synonyms.

As well as basic trade monitoring, UNEP-WCMCcarries out analyses of the data for the CITES Techni-cal Committees and for countries preparing propos-als to amend the CITES Appendices. Much work isalso done for the European Commission, includingthe provision of reports for its Scientific Review Group.

Species data

UNEP-WCMC also maintains a more general SpeciesConservation Database of information on specieslisted by CITES as well as by other internationalinstruments, part of which is common to The IUCNRed List of Threatened Species (see www.redlist.org).

From this database, the Centre provides supportto the CITES Nomenclature Committee and producesan updated checklist of CITES species and an anno-tated history of the CITES Appendices following eachConference of the Parties.

Ecosystem approach

Increasingly, Parties to CITES recognise the need toexchange data with neighbouring countries for theappropriate management of common resources. Arecent example of the need for this ecosystem approachto species monitoring emerged from the discussionsat COP11 on the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelysimbricata in the Wider Caribbean Region.

UNEP-WCMC was subsequently entrusted with theestablishment of a Data Sharing Facility to assist themonitoring of turtle populations in the region. ThisFacility is now bringing together more than 70 expertorganizations to produce its on-line database.

There are several other initiatives of this naturerelevant to CITES and implemented by UNEP-WCMCin collaboration with other members of the UNEPfamily. These include: the World Digital Atlas of

Marine Mammals and the Atlas of Great Apes, bothwith the UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions,and the Marine Turtle Interactive Mapping System forthe Indian Ocean and South Pacific Regions, with theConvention on Migratory Species.

Gerardo Fragoso is Head of theSpecies Programme at UNEP-WCMC.

Visit http://www.unep-wcmc.org/

UNEP-WCMC: for the record

Gerardo Fragoso

Monitoring elephants: MIKE and ETIS

Given the polarity of opinion among the CITES Parties on the sub-ject of elephants, it is crucial that their decisions on elephant issuesbe based on the best possible information.

MIKE and ETIS are monitoring tools used by CITES in the com-plex business of assessing policies for trade in elephant products.MIKE stands for Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants and ETISfor Elephant Trade Information System.

MIKE represents a milestone in species conservation: for the firsttime samples of representative populations will be monitoredthroughout the range of the species by means of a cooperativeeffort of the range states concerned.

These systems emerged after the 10th meeting of the Confer-ence of the Parties as expert systems to provide information to theParties on illegal activities involving elephants.

Visit http://www.cites.org/eng/programme/mike_etis.shtml

This shipment of about 700 ricefield terrapins Malayemys subtrijuga wasconfiscated on 15 March 2000 at Ninh Binh, Viet Nam, en route to northern VietNam and allegedly onwards to food markets in southern China. Data from suchconfiscations are recorded in the UNEP-WCMC trade database.

MAKING IT WORK

PE

TER

PA

UL

VA

N D

IJK


Wildlife

Many rural households in developing countries de-pend on wildlife resources, both plants and animals,as a source of products for subsistence and sale togenerate a cash income. Most of the wildlife har-vested for sale is sold within the country where it origi-nates. Markets from small villages to major urbancentres teem with wildlife products including fruits,honey, wild meat and fish, medicinal plants, baskets,furniture and construction materials, fuelwood, and

in some cases live animals. For species such as theCITES-listed African elephant Loxodonta africanaand the South African aloe Aloe ferox, however, asignificant share of products traded are destined forforeign markets.

Trade and trade controls: the human factor

CITES was developed with the clear mandate to pro-tect wild species from over-exploitation for interna-tional trade. Little attention was paid to how CITEStrade controls might impact on the lives of peoplewho depended on the trade in CITES-listed species.The report, Making a Killing or Making a Living:Wildlife Trade, Trade Controls and Rural Livelihoodsby the International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED) and TRAFFIC examines this ques-tion through a literature review and a case study inTanzania’s East Usambara Mountains.

The study found that despite making an importantcontribution to rural livelihoods, the internationalwildlife trade is poorly documented. Information onthe trade in CITES-listed species is somewhat better,though not when it comes to its economic benefits forrural communities. Nevertheless, some preliminary

The wildlife business

The international wildlife trade, both legal andillegal, is a major commercial activity. It is esti-mated to be worth a minimum of 10 billion to 20billion dollars annually and to involve millions ofwild plants and animals every year. According tothe CITES trade database maintained by UNEP-WCMC, 19 million bulbs were exported from Tur-key and 360,000 rainsticks were exported fromChile and Peru during 1999. From 1995–1999legal international trade in CITES-listed speciesinvolved over 250,000 (Appendix II) and1,250,000 (Appendix III) live birds, 640,000 livereptiles, about three million reptile skins, 150,000furs, almost 300 tonnes of caviar, over 1 millionpieces of coral, and 21,000 hunting trophies.(Source: European Commission, DG Environment)

Wildlife trade ranges from live animals andplants to a vast array of products derived fromthem, from food, timber and leather goods tomusical instruments, souvenirs andmedicines. Trade, combined with factors suchas habitat loss, can deplete species to levelsclose to extinction, and remove the naturalresources on which innumerable humanlivelihoods depend.

Rural economies: cashing inTeresa Mulliken

LIVELIHOODSand

According to the UNEP-WCMC trade database, 19 million bulbs wereexported from Turkey in 1999.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/MIC

HE

L G

UN

THE

R


Making a Killing or Makinga Living: Wildlife Trade,Trade Controls and RuralLivelihoods examines theimpacts of CITES andother wildlife tradecontrols on rurallivelihoods. It results froma project carried out bythe International Institutefor Environment andDevelopment (IIED) andTRAFFIC and funded bythe UK Department forInternational Development.

Largest consumers

The US is the world’s largest consumer of wildlife products. Everyyear it imports as many as 10,000 primates, several million orchids,250,000 live birds, two million reptiles and 200 million tropical fish,along with millions of wildlife products found in items such as cloth-ing, jewelry, and medicines (Source: Wildlife for sale, WWF-US, 2000).

The EU is the second largest market for CITES species estimatedto represent one third of the world market. Legal EU CITES imports inrecent years are estimated annually at 7000 primates (30% of globaltrade), 850,000 live birds (65% of global trade), 55,000 live reptiles(15% of global trade), 800,000 plants (75% of global trade), 150 tonnesof caviar (50% of global trade) (Source: European Commission).

conclusions could be drawn regarding the trade, tradecontrols and rural livelihoods.

Income from the export of wild specimens such asAloe ferox from South Africa continues to be impor-tant to the rural poor. In some cases increased CITEStrade controls can have a major impact on rural in-comes with little conservation benefit, as seems to bethe case for the Appendix I listing of Goffin’s cockatooCacatua goffini.

In others, CITES can help bring trade back withinsustainable levels, supporting conservation andlivelihoods, as has been shown for vicuña Vicugnavicugna.

CITES does not operate in isolation, however. Na-tional restrictions on access to resources and marketsare often more important in shaping trade and ben-efit flows, as are shifts in markets. These are ofteninfluenced by CITES debates and decisions, as has beenthe case for African elephants.

Captive breeding and artificial production of manywild species is increasing, including species used forthe pet trade, medicinal and ornamental plants. Thisis likely to reduce the incomes of rural harvesters,who are often the poorest members of theircommunities.

A tool for development

CITES is increasing its attention to development is-sues, and can and should be a powerful tool to helppeoples and governments achieve both developmentand conservation objectives. The CITES community,industry and consumers will need to increase theirappreciation of the importance of wildlife trade torural livelihoods. Further, CITES decision-makingprocesses will need to change, so that socio-economicas well as biological information is considered, andtake account of lessons learned from projects aimedat community-based wildlife management and non-timber forest product development. This will requiremore effective partnerships with the developmentcommunity and better links with the Convention onBiological Diversity.

Teresa Mulliken is Research andPolicy Coordinator for TRAFFIC.

Visit http://www.traffic.org/

Millions of orchids areimported by the US and

Europe each year.Right: Cypripedium

flavum from Betahei inChina. Below: orchidhouse in Jersey, UK.

Out on a limbtogether: red andgreen macaw Arachloroptrus andcommon squirrelmonkey Saimirisciureus in Brazil.European Unionimports account for65% of the globaltrade in live birds and30% of the globaltrade in primates.

IUC

N/W

EN

DY

STR

AH

M

WW

F/U

NE

P/T

OP

HA

M/R

ICA

RD

O B

ELI

EL

RB

G K

EW

/C.

GR

EY-

WIL

SO

N


WILDLIFE AND LIVELIHOODS

Among the many conservation challenges facingAsia, the turtle crisis stands out as being particularlyserious.

In the past decade, the already severe habitat im-pacts were joined by an even bigger threat to the sur-vival of Asia’s tortoises and freshwater turtles: massdemand for turtles for consumption in East Asia. In-tensive collection of turtles of all sizes in several coun-tries has led to depleted populations, after which newsources were developed in other places, depletingmore populations and species. As a result, 67 species– more than two-thirds of Asia’s 90 species of tor-toises and freshwater turtles – are now consideredthreatened with extinction and included in the IUCNRed List.

Gathering our forces

Many individuals and organizations are cooperatingto deal with the Asian turtle crisis. A major workshopheld in December 1999 defined the scope and extentof the problems, while another in January 2001 or-ganized isolated efforts to breed threatened speciesin captivity into a comprehensive strategy involvingrange states and volunteer efforts across the world.

In April 2000, CITES Parties agreed to include all 10species of the Asian box turtle genus Cuora in Appen-dix II, in an attempt to bring one of the most obvi-ously over-exploited turtle groups within sustainabletrade levels. In addition, several countries, notably thePeople’s Republic of China, Viet Nam and Cambodia,significantly strengthened their species protection andtrade regulation controls. The farming of one par-ticular species, the Chinese soft-shelled turtlePelodiscus sinensis, has met a significant part of mar-ket demand for turtle meat with a reliable supply ofsustainably produced turtles. This seems to have re-duced exploitation pressures on remaining wild popu-lations of this and other freshwater turtle species.

Finding solutions

In the clearest statement yet to show that CITES Par-ties are concerned about Asian turtles, even thoughmost species are not included in the CITES Appendi-ces, the Parties instructed the CITES Secretariat toorganize a workshop to develop ways to cope withthe crisis. This workshop was held in Kunming, China,in March 2002, and brought together government rep-resentatives from 12 Asian countries and regions.

The participants discussed a wide range of issuesand considered a variety of measures that will con-tribute to solving the crisis. These measures includedfarming of turtles, making non-detrimental findingsfor trade in CITES-regulated species, improving traderegulation by including additional species in the CITESAppendices, improving national legislation and en-forcement, developing solutions for the disposal ofconfiscated animals, and increasing awareness of au-thorities, traders, consumers and other stakeholders.Facilitated by the workshop, twelve proposals for theinclusion of Asian freshwater turtle genera and spe-cies were submitted to the CITES Secretariat for de-liberation at the next Conference of Parties.

There remain great challenges to ensure that Asia’stortoises and freshwater turtles survive in the wild,but the progress made in the past few years is impres-sive and gives much hope for the future.

Peter Paul van Dijk is a Deputy Chair of theIUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle

Specialist Group.Visit http://www.chelonian.org

In the soup: the Asian turtle crisisPeter Paul van Dijk

Available from TRAFFIC:Available from TRAFFIC:Available from TRAFFIC:Available from TRAFFIC:Available from TRAFFIC:Asian Turtle Trade: Proceedings of a Workshop onConservation and Trade of Freshwater Turtles andTortoises in Asia. Chelonian ResearchMonographs Number 2. Edited by Peter Paul vanDijk, Bryan L. Stuart, and Anders G.J. Rhodin.Chelonian Research Foundation. 2000.http://www.traffic.org/publications/pubs_tesa.html

In 2000 all ten species of Asian box turtle including Cuora galbifrons (pictured)were added to Appendix II.

Shells of butchered turtles are broken up and sold asingredients in traditional oriental medicinal preparationsin the market of Guangzhou, China.

PE

TER

PA

UL

VA

N D

IJK

PE

TER

PA

UL

VA

N D

IJK



The past two decades have seen an in-creased global interest in herbal medi-cines, but only recently has CITES openedup to the issues of medicinal plant over-utilization.

In its early days, CITES’ focus on plantswas limited to ornamental groups like or-chids and cacti, where the internationaltrade challenge is unscrupulous collec-tors trying to get hold of novelties or thelast remaining specimens of diminishingpopulations.

In the 1990s attention shifted towardscommodity trade issues – primarily fortimber, but also for medicinal plants. Themajority of the 17 medicinal plant spe-cies now included in the CITES Appendi-ces were added after 1989.

Since its creation in 1994, the Medici-nal Plant Specialist Group (MPSG) hasprovided the expertise of its worldwidemembership to the CITES listing processwhich unrolls before every meeting ofthe Conference of Parties.

Establishing long-term and sustain-able use of medicinal plant resources is one of themajor objectives of the MPSG. With the exception ofSaussurea costus, which is listed on Appendix I, allmedicinal plant species included in CITES are listed inAppendix II. This means that trade from wild sourcesis possible but has to be carefully monitored by CITESAuthorities, and consignments must be accompaniedby the appropriate documentation.

Including a species in Appendix II does not im-prove the situation without proper implementation.The CITES Significant Trade Review process is de-signed to identify gaps and deficits and to make CITESmore effective. From 1996 to 1999 a cross-cuttingstudy was carried out by the German CITES ScientificAuthority to carefully review all CITES medicinalplants. Throughout this process, many members ofthe MPSG contributed data and assessments.

Uwe Schippmann is Head of theCITES Scientific Authority for Plants,

Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany.The CITES Medicinal Plants Significant Trade Study can

be obtained from [email protected]

Medicinal plants: just what the doctor ordered!Uwe Schippmann

East Asia: a ray of hopeCraig Kirkpatrick

People will stop using endangered species as medi-cine if given proven alternatives. This clear messagecame from a TRAFFIC survey of traditional medicinedoctors in Korea carried out in 2001. These doctorsstill prescribe some endangered species because theyknow of no substitutes. However, most of these doc-tors would immediately prescribe substitutes if proveneffective.

An additional ray of hope comes from the TRAFFICsurvey, Attitudes of Hong Kong Chinese Toward Wild-life Conservation and the Use of Wildlife as Medicineand Food. Most people will not use traditional medi-cines if it threatens a species with extinction. Manypeople who take traditional medicines are unaware oflaws prohibiting the use of endangered species suchas tiger and rhinoceros. They will stop if they learn itis against the law.

TRAFFIC’s surveys show clear avenues for conser-vation action. Research is also needed to prove theefficacy of alternatives to medicines currently madewith endangered species. TRAFFIC East Asia is com-mitted to the conservation of traditional medicinesthrough education and research such as this.

Craig Kirkpatrick is Regional Director,TRAFFIC East Asia.

Available from IUCN: Available from IUCN: Available from IUCN: Available from IUCN: Available from IUCN: The Medicinal PlantConservation Bibliography, produced by the MPSG ,collects information on the distribution, life history,biology, population status, levels of extraction andtrade, and resource management of medicinal planttaxa. Volume 1 covers 1990 to 1996, Volume 2, 1997to 2000.

IUC

N/W

EN

DY

STR

AH

M

At the last COP the spring adonis Adonis vernalis was included in Appendix II. Found inEurope and Siberia, this attractive flowering herb is used in homeopathy and folk medicine.It has become threatened in many European countries due to collection and habitat loss.


Molluscs are the second most diverse group of fauna,with an estimated 135,000 species in the world. Themain ones that are exploited are bivalves (freshwaterand marine), gastropods (mainly marine) andcephalopods (squid, octopus and cuttlefish). The levelof exploitation is high, and the profits can be signifi-cant.

CITES is an excellent tool for monitoring and regu-lating shell and shellfish industries which might other-wise unsustainably exploit the resource. However,the species listed were mainly proposed in the firstdecades of CITES.

Clams and conchs

Nine species of giant clams (Family Tridacnidae) wereincluded in CITES Appendix II in 1983 and 1985, someof which are range-restricted and more threatenedthan others. The main threat lies in uncontrolled ex-ploitation, which has already led to localized extinc-tions in some countries. Clams are mainly used fortheir meat, with the major exports going to East Asia.In many countries their shells are used for decorativearts and in the aquarium trade. Some of the traffic isillegal, due in part to ignorance of the requirementsfor import and export licences.

In addition, more than 60,000 live animals are tradedinternationally each year, and in 1997 over 70% weredestined for the US. Since successful ex-situ breedingprogrammes now exist, a higher proportion of theclams imported are now captive reared.

The queen conch Strombus gigas, in great demandfor its succulent meat, was listed on CITES AppendixII in 1992. It has since been reviewed under the

From the shop window to the frying pan,molluscs mean businessMary Seddon

Significant Trade processes in 1992 and 2001 (see page5). In the second half of the 1990s this Caribbeanconch was one of the most traded CITES species, withan annual trade of at least 50 million individuals rep-resenting US$60 million, mainly to the US and EU. Itsshells are also used for decorative arts, although thelabelling will often indicate that the shell is a by-prod-uct of a sustainable shellfish industry.

To improve the management of these fisheries,more uniformity between management practices(e.g., periods with closed seasons), establishment ofagreed ‘no-take zones’, and a greater degree of stockmonitoring are needed.

Mussels in demand

In the US, during the late 1800s and early 1900s,manufacturing pearl buttons was an important com-mercial freshwater industry – at least until the ad-vent of plastic buttons in the 1940s. Today thecommercially-harvested shells are exported to Asiafor the production of beads which are inserted intoother shellfish to produce pearls. Japanese demandfor the high-quality US mussel shells is high, and ex-ports peaked in 1991 at more than 9000 tonnesalthough it has now levelled off to about 4500 tonnes.


Breeding farm for giant clams Tridacna spp. in Palau, Micronesia.

The shell trade for tourists is a serious threat toMadagascar’s marine resources.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/ME

G G

AW

LER

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/JU

RG

EN

FR

EU

ND


As a result of this harvesting, there are 29 freshwatermolluscs on CITES Appendix I or II.

Extending CITES’ mantle of protection

Many industries in Asia and the Indo-Pacific use shellsfor ornamental craftwork, button-making and pearlproduction. In some countries there is already legis-lation to regulate catch levels and export trade. How-ever, declines in harvesting levels have been reportedfor species such as chanks Turbinella spp., thin-shelledcapiz Placuna spp., and abalone Haliotus spp.

The use of taxa such as Nautilius in the aquariumtrade has also attracted some attention recently. Be-cause these species are slow breeders there was con-cern at the level of harvest in some countries. Similarly,little work has been done to evaluate levels of trade inmore widespread species of cephalopod, although thereis a significant volume of trade in these species.

Bushmeat: recipe for extinctionRob Barnett

The African continent faces a serious crisis due to anincreasing demand for the meat of wild animals foran ever-growing human population. This crisis is welldocumented in West and Central Africa, where manypopulations of threatened species of antelopes andprimates are becoming endangered by their use andtrade as food.

Research shows that wildlife, traditionally viewedas a dietary supplement, has also become a keysource of food and legal tender in Eastern andSouthern Africa. Moreover, there is growing evidencethat this crisis is not just an African issue, but of para-mount importance in other regions such as SouthAmerica, East Asia and South East Asia.

Throughout the world, wildlife populations withinand outside protected areas are being greatly af-fected by the illegal killing of wildlife for meat – theso-called use and trade of ‘bushmeat’. Bushmeat isnow believed to constitute one of the largest singlefactors adversely affecting wildlife populations inmany regions of the world.

In the Congo basin of Central Africa alone, thebushmeat trade involves some 2.5 million tonnes ofmeat each year, while the trade in such West Africancountries as Ghana is about 385,000 metric tonnesper year – representing a significant contribution tothe countries’ Gross Domestic Product. In the South-ern African country of Mozambique, the trade ofbushmeat in just one city – the capital Maputo – isabout 604 tonnes per year.

In South East Asia, the trade in freshwater turtles(see page 16), reptiles and pangolins for their meat isalso reaching alarming levels, as is the meat-motivatedtrade in peccaries in South America.

Consequently, the bushmeat trade is of immediateconcern to the conservation community as well as

those engaged in rural development and food secu-rity issues. Without bushmeat the well-being of largesectors of society is in jeopardy. However, efforts toprovide a social solution are necessarily long-term,whereas the scale of the current problem also requiresimmediate remedial action.

Practical solutions

Following a period gathering baseline information onthe dynamics of bushmeat use, TRAFFIC – the wild-life trade monitoring arm of WWF and IUCN – is seek-ing to implement practical solutions that address boththese short and long-term issues.


In some parts of the world shells are ground up foruse in the manufacture of perfume and incense. Phar-maceutical industries also use molluscs to derivebioluminescent dyes and for antibiotics. In many casesthe volume and type of shells used for these purposesand for traditional medicines are not known.

Much work will be required to review those spe-cies that might be affected by increasing levels of tradeand of commercial fishing and harvesting in recentdecades. We need ever-more effective mechanismsto protect molluscs in trade from becoming threat-ened, and CITES listing should be among them.

Mary Seddon is co-Chair of theIUCN/SSC Mollusc Specialist Group

and Head of the Mollusca National Museum of Wales.Visit http://bama.ua.edu/~clydeard/

IUCN-SSC_html/index.htm

Bushmeat takes its place among other natural products at a market in BeninCity, Nigeria.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/SA

ND

RA

MB

AN

EFO

OB

IAG

O


First, a project funded by WWF Netherlands is be-ing implemented in the East Africa region to help avertthe short-term loss of threatened species in the re-gion. This will be done by establishing the capacity ofwildlife authorities to identify meat samples to thespecies level, thereby providing more effective en-forcement of national wildlife legislation and CITESregulations.

A second but no less important aim of TRAFFIC isto address some of the more fundamental social fac-tors that have led to the bushmeat crisis. TRAFFIC’spast and ongoing work on the dynamics of the illegaltrade in bushmeat has led to the conclusion that solu-tions must involve a community-based approach thattackles the fundamental social demand for bushmeatamong rural and urban poor. Such an approach islikely to be based on the replacement of illegalbushmeat with legally derived sources of game meat.

While solutions to the bushmeat issue are now be-ginning to be implemented, greater effort needs to bemade now by the conservation community and thoseengaged in rural development and food security is-sues. Landowners and those holding rights over com-munal land need to get a tangible benefit from thesustainable management of the bushmeat resource.

Only when benefits accrue to landholders and otherstakeholders can wildlife play a truly sustainable rolein community development, and by doing so, ensureits own continued survival.

Rob Barnett is Senior Programme Officer atTRAFFIC East/Southern Africa.

Getting your goat:trophy hunting for mountain ungulatesMarco Festa Bianchet

are much sought after by trophy hunters. Hunts forCaprinae can cost from US$8000 to $40,000. The mainfocus of the substantial and expanding trade in wildsheep and goats is the hunting of mature males (‘trade’is defined by CITES as the movement of a commodityacross international borders). Though internationaltrophy hunters cross borders with the head and capeof harvested animals, they actually buy the opportu-nity to hunt live animals in their natural habitat.

To produce mature males with trophy-size horns,populations require good habitat and little or nopoaching. Consequently, the IUCN/SSC CaprinaeSpecialist Group (CSG) has long been interested inpartnerships with hunting groups to ensure thattrophy hunting is used to foster conservation. Because

Wild sheep and goats, or Caprinae as they are collec-tively termed, have always awakened a sense of awein people, because they live in inhospitable, spec-tacular and often remote mountains. Geographicisolation has led to the evolution of several distinctsub-species. In many areas, wild Caprinae are threat-ened by over-grazing by domestic livestock, exoticdiseases, habitat destruction and illegal hunting. Sev-eral species are protected from the impact of interna-tional trade through inclusion in CITES Appendix I orII. A novel conservation approach involving trophyhunting, however, appears to be paying dividends incertain areas.

Caprinae are majestic animals, and getting to theirhabitat is physically challenging. Consequently, they

Available from IUCN: Links between biodiversityconservation, livelihoods and food security: thesustainable use of wild species for meat, a jointpublication of IUCN/SSC, FAO and TRAFFIC. Seehttp://www.iucn.org/bookstore

Available from TRAFFIC: Food for Thought: TheUtilization of Wild Meat in Eastern and Southern Africa.Edited by Rob Barnett, TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa,2000. See http://www.traffic.org/publications/pubs_tesa.html

Tangible benefits: in Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo,tourists collect around mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei, increasinglyendangered by the bushmeat trade.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/MA

RTI

N H

AR

VE

Y



population monitoring and species identi-fication are vital to any management re-gime that aims to ensure the long-termsurvival of the population, the CSG has beenworking with partners to develop the ap-propriate knowledge base.

CSG members are involved in field-work and research in several countriesin Central Asia, assisting in the collectionof information on the status of species tofulfill the requirements of the CITES non-detriment finding. For instance, Drs BillWall and Andrey Subbotin, supported bythe Safari Club International Foundation,including the Conseil International de laChasse, helped finance a survey of argaliOvis ammon in Mongolia, and are advis-ing that country on developing a nation-wide management strategy.

In February 2002, in cooperation withthe WWF-Central Asian Biodiversity Pro-gramme, they surveyed argali in thePamirs of Tajikistan. In April, in conjunc-tion with the CITES Secretariat, the USFish & Wildlife Service and TRAFFIC, theyhosted a workshop in Bishkek,Kyrgyzstan, to explain international regulations suchas CITES and to stimulate the implementation of Con-servation Hunting Programmes in Tajikistan,Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistanand Turkmenistan.

Pros and cons of trophy hunting

Clearly, reliable species identification is vital to theimplementation of CITES. Species identification is anobstacle to conservation of Caprinae, particularly inAsia because experts disagree on taxonomy and fewpeople can identify subspecies. The CSG thereforeheld a workshop on Caprinae taxonomy in Ankara,Turkey, in 2000.

Can trophy hunting foster conservation of moun-tain ungulates? We can point to some successes, forexample in the Torghar area of Pakistan, where trophy

hunting of both markhor Capra falconeri and urialOvis vignei produced revenues for hiring more than60 local people as game wardens. The hunting rev-enue may be instrumental in reducing the impact oflivestock grazing on wildlife habitat. Populations ofboth species have substantially increased since theimplementation of the programme, which enjoysstrong support from local people. Consequently, theCSG has supported the yearly export ofup to six trophies of markhor, a CITESAppendix I species.

In other cases, however, there is littleor no evidence that funds from trophyhunting are used for conservation. Tro-phy hunting of mountain ungulates pro-duces large revenues. If well regulated, itis sustainable because it is aimed only atmature males.

The key for conservation lies in ensur-ing that revenues from hunting pro-grammes produce tangible conservationbenefits in the local area. Continuedcooperation between the IUCN CSG,hunting groups, various levels ofgovernment and internationalconservation agencies is crucial to ensurethe future of mountain ungulates.

Marco Festa Bianchet is Chair of theIUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group and a researcher

at the Département de biologie,Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.

For the report of the taxonomy workshop seehttp://callisto.si.usherb.ca:8080/caprinae/taxo.htmA game guard keeps watch over the Khyber Pass.

DA

VID

SH

AC

KLE

TON

PA

IND

KH

AN

Wild Sheep and Goats and theirRelatives (1997) is available fromthe World Conservation Bookstore.

Hunting of markhor Capra falconeri for their trophies is extremely lucrative, bringing benefitsto local people, incentives to protect habitat, and enough revenue to hire about 64 gameguards. For this reason, the export of a small number of trophies is allowed from the Torgharregion of Pakistan in spite of Appendix I listing.


Global trade threatens marine species around the world, as over-exploitationcombines with climate change and habitat destruction to deplete essentialresources. According to FAO, some 75% of the world’s fish stocks are fully orover-exploited. Accordingly, at the recent Earth Summit in Johannesburg theworld community committed themselves to restoring fisheries to their maximumsustainable yield levels by 2015. From sharks to sturgeon to seahorses, marinespecies are rising higher on the international agenda.

Fisheries: finding the right balance

Kevern Cochrane

With a few exceptions, CITES has so far had littleimpact on commercial fisheries around the world.There are signs that this could change, however, andthis has led to concern among some member coun-tries of the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAO) that the CITES listing cri-teria might not be appropriate to deal with exploitedand managed fishery resources. They brought theseconcerns to a meeting of the FAO Committee onFisheries (COFI) Sub-Committee on Fish Trade inBremen, Germany in June 1998.

This was the start of a long and productive scien-tific review by FAO of the CITES criteria and listingprocess as applied to commercially-exploited aquaticspecies.

Dissenting views

In spite of progress, there is still disagreement amongFAO members as to the role and function of CITESin relation to commercially exploited aquatic spe-cies. Some countries have reservations about CITESinvolvement in resources exploited by fisheries, be-lieving that FAO and the mandated regional fisher-ies management organizations (RFMOs) are theappropriate international bodies on fisheries andfisheries management.

However, other countries see a useful role forCITES in fisheries management as a supplement to,but not a replacement for, traditional fisheries man-agement.

This dissent reflects similar disparities at the na-tional level and the FAO process has highlighted theneed in many countries for improved communica-tion between the fisheries authorities and those re-sponsible for CITES-related matters.

Call for change

At a meeting in 2002, the COFI Sub-Committee agreedthat there is a need for important changes in the

FAO’s shark plan: good intentions, little progress

Modern fishing technology and improved access to world markets havetogether caused an increase in fishing effort and catches of sharks,skates and rays. More than 100 countries report shark landings toFAO each year, with 18 reporting annual landings of more than 10,000tonnes/yr.

Recognising the need for international cooperation to manage sharkfisheries, in February 1999 FAO adopted the International Plan of Ac-tion for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, as endorsed bythe FAO Committee on Fisheries.

Today, more than three years later, only 29 states have reported anyprogress implementing the plan. Of these, just five states have SharkAssessment Reports (SAR) or National Plans of Action (NPOA) avail-able for public consultation and review. All of the national plans reviewedfail to meet some of the standards recommended by FAO.

– Alison RosserVisit http://www.fao.org/fi/ipa/manage1.asp

Marine resourcesON THE MENU

Shark fins drying for market in the Philippines.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/JU

RG

EN

FR

EU

ND


CITES criteria and evaluation process if the Conven-tion is to play a constructive role in conserving aquaticendangered species subject to commercialexploitation.

FAO has forwarded to CITES a series of generalrecommendations, including (1) the best scientific in-formation available must be used in considering anypopulation for listing or de-listing, (2) each proposalneeds to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis througha strengthened scientific process and (3) that nationaland regional fisheries agencies need to be more in-volved in formulating and evaluating proposals. Morespecific recommendations address the criteria them-selves.

FAO members also plan to explore the implica-tions of the CITES listings, especially in relation to thelook-alike clause (whereby species are listed in Ap-pendix II when the specimens in trade look like thoseof species listed for conservation reasons); split-list-ing (listing on more than one Appendix); listed speciesproduced through aquaculture; and the administra-tive and socio-economic implications of listing anddown-listing.

A long way to go

Clearly, there is much work to be done before agree-ment can be reached among the national representa-tives to FAO about an appropriate role and mechanismfor CITES for commercially-exploited aquatic species.

Nevertheless, good progress has been made. TheFAO process has improved awareness and knowledgeof CITES among fishery agencies and has resulted ina good working relationship between the twoSecretariats.

Kevern Cochrane is a Senior Fishery ResourcesOfficer, Marine Resources Service (FIRM), FAO.

See http://www.fao.org/

The view from MadagascarClaudine Ramiarison and Andrew Cooke

Madagascar possesses one of the richest assemblagesof marine resources in the Western Indian Ocean.Dugong, dolphins, sea turtles, tuna, sharks, sawfish,sea cucumbers, shrimp, crayfish and gastropods areamong many high-value species exploited for localconsumption or international trade.

This exploitation is of considerable importanceto the livelihoods of coastal communities, and isregulated by a patchwork of traditional, legislativeand international controls rarely enforced in prac-tice.

Since Madagascar ratified CITES in 1975 it hashad difficulty managing its international trade forsustainability, particularly of reptiles. This led to arecent ministerial order suspending all cross-bor-der trade in CITES-listed species.

However, systems being developed for commu-nity-based management of natural resourcescould help to manage resource exploitation at thelocal level.

Patterns of exploitation

There are essentially two types of fishery in Madagas-car. The industrial, based from ships: it targets off-shore tuna, bill-fish and sharks (as bycatch) andnear-shore penaeid shrimp.

The traditional form is carried out from dugoutcanoes. It embraces virtually every edible or saleableresource including marine mammals, bird eggs, seaturtles, fish, sharks and rays, echinoderms, molluscs,crustaceans and sea weeds. Non-edible resources suchas aquarium fish, corals and sponges are occasionallycollected. In addition, a semi-industrial fishery for seacucumber is growing, illegally using SCUBA to reachdeeper species.

Madagascar is rich in marine resources, some of which are exploited for bothlocal consumption and international trade. Pictured: bringing in the day’scatch at Anakao near Toliara, south-west Madagascar.

MARINE RESOURCES

Although some marine species are listed on variousAppendices, such as queen conch, hard corals, andgiant clams, debate continues as to whether or notmarine fish should be listed. Pictured: hard and softcorals for sale in Limbe Town, Cameroon.

WW

F/M

AU

RI

RA

UTK

AR

I

AN

DR

EW

CO

OK

E


Domestically protected and CITES-listed species,such as dolphins, dugong and sea turtles, do not escape.All are to some extent hunted for meat, which is soldor bartered locally, while the sale of turtle shell stilloccurs openly in tourism centres.

Several non-protected, non-CITES listed, high valuemarine species are intensively hunted. Of these, sharkstocks are reportedly locally in decline, with a declinein fin exports since 1992. Sea cucumber exports rosefrom 1991–1994, but have since declined and similarlylobster yields have also declined. The ornamental shelltrade is substantial, but inadequately monitored.

Involving communities

In response to these problems, Madagascar is cur-rently piloting various forms of community-basedmanagement of marine resources.

Thus communities near Anakao, the Great Reef ofToliara, and at Tolagnaro are working variously in con-sultation with local authorities, the Ministry of Fisher-ies and local tourism operators to limit excessiveofftake and reduce conflict. Strategies include estab-lishing no-take zones and gear restrictions as well asre-investing income from tourism into conservationand social projects. Static resources such as sea cu-cumber, lobster and ornamental shells are the mostsusceptible to these management systems. Mobileresources such as shark pose greater challenges!

Needed: a ‘whole system’ approach

The case of Madagascar illustrates a discrepancy be-tween the management of international trade throughCITES and in-country management of marineresources.

First, local management fails to prevent domestic ex-ploitation of CITES Appendix I species where theirprime local importance is as food (turtles, dolphin,dugong) rather than for trade.

Second, CITES provides no controls over non-listedspecies that are intensively exploited and importantfor trade (sea cucumbers, sharks and crayfish) whilelocal management offers some prospect for rationalexploitation.

It follows that there needs to be an integration ofinternational trade controls and local managementinto a ‘whole system’ approach to effect managementalong an entire product stream from collection to enduser.

Adding value

Currently, pilot programmes of reptile managementare seeking to integrate local communities as part-ners in the commercialization of species, adding valueat the collection stage. This should contribute to betterconservation of resources.

The recently formed Western Indian Ocean Sus-tainable Use Specialist Group and the new Madagas-car Sharks Group (which is linked to the SSC SharkSpecialist Group) are now seeking to develop collabo-ration between the Government of Madagascar andcommunities to implement these new approaches.

Claudine Ramiarison is Executive Director of SAGE(Support Services to Environmental Management),

and President of the Western Indian OceanSustainable Use Specialist Group (WIOSUSG),

Antananarivo, Madagascar.

Andrew Cooke is Director of RESOLVE Consulting(advisory services in law and natural resources

management), Antananarivo, Madagascar.

Visit http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/susg/susgs/woii.html

Updated versions of the Shark and Cetacean ActionPlans will soon be available from the WorldConservation Bookstore. Other Action Plansparticularly relevant to CITES-listed marine species:Mediterranean Island Plants (1996); Tortoises andFreshwater Turtles (1989); Otters (1990); Seals, Fur Seals,Sea Lions, and Walrus (1993).

For a list of TRAFFIC publications on shark fisheries and trade, visithttp://www.traffic.org/publications/pubs_sharks.html

For information on marine fisheries at COP12, see http:/www.traffic.org/cop12/resources.html

Local management fails to prevent domestic exploitation of CITES Appendix Ispecies such as turtles, dolphins and dugong whose prime local importance isas food rather than for trade. Pictured: a female green turtle Chelonia mydasreturns to the sea after nesting.

Available from IUCN:

TRAFFIC on-line

Available from TRAFFIC Europe:Review of Trade in Live Corals from Indonesiaby Caroline Raymakers, August 2001.

Elasmobranch Biodiversity,Conservation andManagement. Proceedingsof the InternationalSeminar and Workshop,Sabah, Malaysia, July1997. Occasional Paperof the IUCN SpeciesSurvival CommissionNo.25.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/Y.-

J. R

EY-

MIL

LET


All 27 species of sturgeon and paddlefish – that is, theentire Order Acipenseriforme – have been includedin the CITES Appendices since June 1997. (Entry intoforce of the listing was delayed to April 1998.)

These fish are quite remarkable, many of them liv-ing for over one hundred years. Some reach a lengthof two metres and weigh in excess of 1000kg. Re-stricted to the northern hemisphere, they occur mainlyin the Caspian Sea and Black Sea, yet are also found inthe US, Europe, Siberia, China and Central Asia.

Considered among the world’s most valuablewildlife resources, sturgeon are renowned in worldmarkets for their roe or caviar, which for some spe-cies may sell for US$6000 per kg. The rare beluga isthe largest sturgeon, and produces the most highlyprized caviar.

Heavy fishing and trading pressure led the Partiesto include all species in either Appendix I or AppendixII and to begin a Significant Trade Review of the 23species included in Appendix II.

The CITES Animals Committee concluded from thereview undertaken by TRAFFIC and IUCN that, for anumber of species in 11 range states, non-detrimentfindings were not being made appropriately. Long listsof tailored actions linked to strict deadlines wererecommended, particularly to four of the Caspianrange states.

In the meantime, the Caspian Environment Pro-gramme (CEP) prepared a joint Caspian fisheries re-search expedition in the summer of 2001 to assessstock status. Scientists from four Caspian nationsparticipated along with international experts in echo-sounding techniques. CEP’s partners in this venturewere the United Nations Development Programme,with funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)and the European Union’s TACIS programme (Tech-nical Assistance to the CIS – Commonwealth of Inde-pendent States). This work helped to demonstratethe extent to which CITES and CEP effectively com-plement each other.

Ultimately, the Significant Trade Review resulted inthe Paris Agreement, adopted by the Caspian rangestates at the 45th Standing Committee meeting toprogress towards co-management of their jointresources.

More is neededThe progress made by the range states in sturgeonfishery provides a bedrock on which to build furtherimprovements. There is still a need to develop stand-ardized methodologies for stock assessments and forassessing the effectiveness of restocking programmes.

Moreover, effective control of the domestic caviarand sturgeon meat markets is proving elusive, butmust be tightened up through market inventories andthe cooperative development of trans-border anti-

poaching units. Reference tissue samples of all stur-geon species are needed to assess the legality of ex-ports. And finally, further work is needed on theuniversal labelling system for caviar to include re-exports and local production.

The outlook for sturgeon has recently brightenedconsiderably with a commitment by Russia to regu-late its domestic market so that only legally-harvestedsturgeon products can be sold.

Caroline Raymakers is RegionalDirector for TRAFFIC Europe.

Sturgeon make a comebackCaroline Raymakers

Sturgeon Specialist Group

The IUCN/SSC Sturgeon Specialist Group works to increase scien-tific collaboration and raise awareness of the need to control poach-ing and illegal trade, improve social-economic conditions for peoplethat live in the areas where sturgeons occur, and improve regionaland international cooperation through agreements for the Amur River,Black Sea, Azov Sea, and Caspian Sea. In early 2001 it gatheredmore than 40 experts and caviar traders from 11 countries in Moscowto identify priorities and actions for sturgeon conservation.

The International Caviar Importers Association (ICIA) has recentlyagreed to provide a grant of US$10,000 to support the Group’s work.

Sturgeons of the Caspian Sea and the international trade in caviar by T. DeMeulenaer and Caroline Raymakers is available from IUCN.

European Union countries alone import some 150 tonnes ofcaviar annually. Pictured: caviar for sale in Astrakhan, Russia.

TRA

FF

IC/C

AR

OLI

NE

RA

YM

AK

ER

SThe Caspian range states are successfully breeding sturgeon for market andto help replenish wild stocks. Pictured: young sturgeon Acipenser sturio froma breeding station in Georgia.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/HA

RTM

UT

JUN

GIU

S


Seahorses, and other syngnathid fishes – pipefishes,pipehorses and seadragons – are highly unusual inthat the males alone brood their young on or in theirbodies. It is perhaps no surprise that such quirkyanimals should lead CITES to think creatively abouthow best to address over-exploitation.

Many syngnathids are heavily traded for traditionalmedicines, tonic foods, ornamental display and curi-osities, to a level that has helped deplete many wildpopulations. These are valuable resources to thou-sands of subsistence fishers and medicinally impor-tant medicines to millions of other people.

CITES’ approach to the issue of trade in these fisheswas wonderfully novel, promoting conservation en-

gagement without originally debat-ing a listing proposal. Australia andthe USA considered proposingtrade controls at the 11th Confer-ence of the Parties in 2000, but fi-nally decided that this action wouldbe premature and might do moreharm than good. Instead, they sub-mitted a discussion document topromote action.

Their caution was rewardedwhen the Parties decided unani-mously to take action on behalf ofsyngnathids – an unusual consen-sus in the case of marine fish. TheAnimals Committee has been busyever since, collating trade data andmanagement information submit-ted by Parties, facilitating a techni-cal workshop in May 2002, and

Pregnant males set a precedent for CITESAmanda Vincent

developing a discussion document for considerationat the 12th Conference of the Parties.

The CITES consultative process led to new evidencethat the seahorse trade and associated conservationproblems had grown sufficiently to require govern-ment intervention. As well, it became clear that manystakeholder groups were requesting managementguidelines for seahorse fisheries, although not neces-sarily through CITES.

After considering a wide array of options, the CITEStechnical workshop on seahorses and othersyngnathids, and the CITES Animals Committee,recommended – as a partial conservation contribu-tion – Appendix II listing for all seahorses, thus sup-porting a proposal to this effect from the United Statesof America.

The delay in proposing an Appendix II listing untilthe 12th Conference of the Parties has fostered con-siderable dialogue on seahorses and their relatives.Such collegiate discussion should help promote col-lective international engagement in managing theirtrade. Indeed, it is a hopeful sign that the Hong KongChinese Medicinal Merchants Association helped fundthe CITES technical workshop and called on its mem-bers to adopt conservation measures for syngnathids,although the Association remains wary of the Appen-dix II listing per se.

Amanda Vincent holds the Canada Research Chair inMarine Conservation at the Fisheries Centre,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.She is also Director of Project Seahorse and

Chair of the CITES Animals Committee’sSyngnathid Working Group.

Project Seahorse is a marine con-servation team that integrates re-search and management, whilecooperating with diverse stake-holder communities around theworld. Seahorses serve as wonder-ful flagship animals for grave prob-lems with overexploitation, wastefulbycatch, and habitat loss.Visit http://www.projectseahorse.org

Seahorse products at a market in Hong Kong. Seahorses are the subject of an unusual pre-listingdebate by CITES, since the taxa are not listed on any of the Appendices.

AM

AN

DA

VIN

CE

NT

Hippocampus kuda is listed asVulnerable by the IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species, although itsstatus is currently being re-assessed.

ED

WA

RD

G.

LIN

ES

/SH

ED

D A

QU

AR

IUM


REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Regional

Good management makes good neighboursMalan Lindeque

Much of the international trade in CITES-listed spe-cies originates from shared populations that are dis-tributed across national borders. Yet traditionallyCITES has been administered at the national level.

Wild species do not, of course, recognise geopoliti-cal borders. Therefore, where shared populations areconcerned, promoting CITES implementation at aregional rather than national level can have signifi-cant benefits. Moreover, limited human and finan-cial resources can be used more effectively, scientificand socio-economic know-how can be pooled lead-ing to better informed decisions about the possibleuse of these species, and regional management poli-cies can be developed that are adapted to the eco-logical and biological characteristics of the resource.

Regional approaches – sensible but rare

From an environmental perspective, harmonizedconservation policies and management regimes forspecies shared by different countries make sense.There are now many bilateral and multilateral agree-ments to conserve and manage marine wildlife re-sources, particularly those developed under theauspices of the Convention on Migratory Species(CMS). Such regional approaches usually include acommon legal framework, institutional arrange-ments, regular consultations, funding, and monitor-ing and compliance. CITES not only encompassesthese elements but has the added strength of meas-ures such as trade sanctions, to ensure better com-pliance with its provisions.

In spite of CITES’ apparent advantages for manag-ing trade and harvest of shared populations, regionalmanagement is still relatively uncommon under theConvention. One notable exception, however, is theagreement among several South American States con-cerning the conservation of the vicuña (Convenio parala Conservación y Manejo de la Vicuña) .

There are unfortunately many more instanceswhere CITES-listed species are subjected to poten-tially conflicting, and sometimes clearly incompatible,national conservation and management policies in thedifferent countries where they occur. Consequently,one of the greatest challenges facing CITES is to

develop effective mechanisms to ensure collabora-tion between countries that trade in products fromshared wild populations.

Beyond charisma

Some of the most complicated debates in CITES in-volve shared populations of so-called ‘charismatic’species, such as elephants, whales and marine tur-tles, where expectations differ about the most effec-tive means of conservation and management. TheConvention cannot necessarily contribute to settingup harmonized management regimes for such spe-cies, particularly when they are widely distributedthrough a large number of countries.

But recently, by instituting the Dialogue Process(see box, page 5) the Convention has assisted in im-proving the understanding of both global and localconservation issues and in encouraging cooperativeregional management decisions about shared re-sources. Dialogues have been held amongst the rangestates of the African elephant Loxodonta africana, andmore recently the range states of the hawksbill turtleEretmochelys imbricata in the Wider Caribbean.

Whether the topic is coral reef conservation, great apeextinctions, illegal trade or climate change, the environmentalconventions are beginning to find more and more overlap intheir interests, activities and sources of support. This is true atall levels, from global to local. CITES, like the other globaltreaties, is necessarily becoming more broad-based in itsapproach. Nowhere is this trend more evident than in CITES’promotion of harmonization, standardization andcommunication at the regional level.

PERSPECTIVES

A rare example of regional management of shared populations is theagreement among several South American countries to manage trade andharvest of the vicuña Vicugna vicugna.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/HA

RTM

UT

JUN

GIU

S


However, these dialogues have notyet resulted in the negotiation oflonger-term regional agreements.

The Review of Significant Trade(see box, page 5) offers a differentexample of the role CITES can playto promote more effective regionalcooperation. Under this review proc-ess, if trade levels are considered topotentially jeopardise conservationof the species, then the technicalCommittees or the Standing Com-mittee may make recommendationsto improve CITES implementation inparticular range states. In the caseof non-compliance the StandingCommittee may even recommend atrade suspension. These trade sus-pensions provide a powerful incen-tive to encourage Parties to takeremedial action, and rather surpris-ingly, the Parties to CITES have con-

tinued to support and strengthen the Significant TradeReview process in an era of opposition to prescriptiveinternational mechanisms.

Holistic approach

Before the potential of the Significant Trade Reviewprocess to encourage regional management was rec-ognised, it was not particularly successful in improv-ing the management of shared populations such asthe African grey parrot Psittacus erithacus and queenconch Strombus gigas. To overcome this, the Signifi-cant Trade Review process should now focus on pro-moting incentives to promote common institutionalarrangements; to undertake joint scientific studies in-volving assessment, monitoring and information ex-change, to decide jointly on levels of harvest andexploitation, and to collaborate on developing con-trols and CITES compliance. Preferably all this shouldbe tied up in longer-term agreements amongst therelevant countries.

An example of this more holistic regional approachis reflected in recent recommendations made by theCommittees concerning sturgeon conservation andtrade management in relation to the fisheries in theBlack Sea, the Amur River, and the Caspian Sea. In thecase of the Caspian sturgeon stocks, the StandingCommittee facilitated an unprecedented pact (theParis Agreement). This agreement includes a detailedprogramme of action by the sturgeon range states ofthe Caspian Sea on status assessment, quota setting,monitoring, law enforcement, the regulation of trade,the recovery of stocks, marking of specimens in trade,genetic identification of stocks, ex situ production andother issues.

This agreement has provided the framework formuch improved regional communication, coopera-tion and transparent decision-making, and also ap-pears to have enabled CITES Management Authoritiesto improve collaboration with other sectors of gov-ernment. It is hoped that a similar approach can even-tually be applied to species as diverse as queen conchin the Caribbean region, African grey parrots and otherparrot species in West and Central Africa, and saigaantelopes Saiga tatarica in Central Asia with the aimof establishing harmonized management systems asthe basis for further international trade.

Malan Lindeque is Chief of the ScientificSupport Unit, CITES Secretariat.

Regional groupings:the EU experienceChristoph Bail

Most international environmental agreements haveprovisions that allow Regional Economic IntegrationOrganizations, such as the European Community, tobecome parties in their own right. Consequently, theCommunity is a party to about 40 multilateral envi-ronmental agreements, including the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD).

However, when CITES was first drawn up in 1973,this eventuality was not considered.

As one of the biggest wildlife markets worldwidethe EU nevertheless assumes its responsibility for sus-tainable trade in wildlife products. It has been imple-menting the Convention in all its Member States since1984, even though not all Member States were Par-ties then. And with the ratification of the Conventionby Ireland this year, all Member States of the Unionare now also Parties in their own right.

Stricter than CITES

EU legislation includes some provisions than are evenstricter than CITES, and which have influenced theConvention’s evolution. The Significant Trade Proc-ess (see page 5), for example, was based on EU law.

The African elephant Loxodonta africana has benefited from a DialogueProcess among its range states.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/MA

RTI

N H

AR

VE

Y

Regional management has not yetbeen successful in protecting theAfrican grey parrot, but theSignificant Trade Review processshould help.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/MIC

HE

L G

UN

THE

R


REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Central America: speaking with one voiceMauricio Castro Salazar

At the 4th CITES COP in Gaborone, Botswana, in1983, the Convention was amended in order to allowaccession by regional economic integration organi-zations. For the amendment to enter into force, 54Parties must ratify it, and so far only 40 have done so.

The European Community’s accession to CITESwould be advantageous for the Convention, bringingincreased accountability, greater access, and financialbenefits. EU Member States already pay 35% of totalannual contributions. The European Commission sup-ports projects such as MIKE (see page 13) and theHawksbill Turtle Dialogue. Party status would pro-vide a better basis for such expenditure.

The European Community is strongly committedto achieving membership of CITES in the belief thatnature conservation will be the prime beneficiary.Accordingly, it looks forward to becoming a Party assoon as possible.

Christoph Bail is Head of Unit E3 “Developmentand the Environment, Mediterranean”, Environment

Directorate General, European Commission.

Central America is a ‘mega-diverse’ region whereapproximately 7% of the planet’s entire biodiversity isrepresented in an area that covers not even 1% of theworld’s landmass. A region with such extraordinarybiodiversity must be prepared to conserve it, under-stand it and use it rationally, as mandated by the sevenHeads of State when they signed the Central Ameri-can Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES)in 1994.

Central America is an example of the will to facethe challenges of the new millennium. At the sametime as this region was negotiating peace after a pe-riod of military conflict culminating in the EsquipulasPeace Plan, it was also discussing how to manage itsecosystems and harmonize policies and environmentallegislation in the different countries. This is how theCentral American Commission on Environment andDevelopment (CCAD) came to be created in 1989, withthe object of establishing an integration agenda forsustainable development in the region.

Finding consensus

The seven Central American countries are increas-ingly determined to speak with a single voice in pre-senting a united position before the body of nations.By unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers,Central America’s position must be forged consensu-ally and in conjunction with Central American civilsociety, gathered together in CCAD’s permanentforum of civil society.

This voice is expressed by the pro tempore Chair, aposition that rotates geographically every six months

along with the rotation of the Chair of the CentralAmerican Integration System.

Recently, CCAD and IUCN, through its Environ-mental Law Programme and the Regional Office forMesoamerica, signed an agreement to strengthensome of CCAD’s technical committees; the CITES com-mittee will be among those that benefit. The purposeof this agreement is to keep committee members (oneper country plus two representatives of civil society)permanently informed about the Convention itself andabout the types and tendencies of positions being pre-sented at Conferences of the Parties.

After long and intensive working sessions, CentralAmerica is now in the process of putting into effecta unified regional authorization permit for trade inpermitted species, and recently concludedstudies inventorying mahogany forests and turtlecolonies.

Wealth and responsibility

The wealth of Central America lies in its diversity andhigh numbers of endemic plant and animal species.Conscious of the responsibility this wealth signifies,the Central American states are committed to takingsure steps forward in the implementation of CITES.

The next CITES COP will provide Central Americawith yet another opportunity to speak to the worldwith one voice, this time counselled by IUCN.

Mauricio Castro Salazar is Executive Secretary of theCentral American Commission on Environment and

Development (CCAD).

The European Commission helped finance the CITES Hawksbill Turtle Dialoguefor the Wider Caribbean, and supports projects such as MIKE. Party statuswould provide a better basis for such expenditure. Pictured: hawksbill turtleEretmochelys imbricata in Praia do Forte, Bahia, Brazil.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/JU

AN

PR

ATG

INE

STO

S


aheadCITES is considered a successful convention.There is much talk of change and improvement,however, perhaps because one of theConvention’s strengths is its adaptability. But isit changing fast enough to maintain itsrelevance in a time of accelerating social andenvironmental transformation?

Looking

Choosing the best route

Steven Broad

CITES is often portrayed as a great success storyamong multilateral remedies to wildlife conservationproblems, its impact constrained only by the willing-ness of member countries to implement and enforceits provisions.

Its detractors, on the other hand, claim that CITES’provisions and approaches are based on out-datedand misguided assumptions about conservationthreats and incentives for change and that it is at bestineffective and sometimes even exacerbates the prob-lems it purports to address.

There may be elements of truth in both points ofview. CITES’ strengths lie in its comprehensive statemembership, in its detailed focus, in the Parties’ will-ingness to take binding decisions, in the accumulatedlearning from over 25 years of practice, in its rela-tively inclusive approach to civil society views andassistance (compared with many other multilateralfora), in the leadership role played by its Secretariat,in its apparent robustness in a political climatewhere non-tariff trade restrictions (howeverjustified) are generally frowned upon, and in theParties’ ongoing enhancement of the Convention’srather crude regulatory toolbox with a wide range

of supplementary measures adopted throughresolutions and decisions.

Some weaknesses

CITES weaknesses lie in:ä the narrow perspective of its decision-making (with

wider conservation threats and socio-economicdynamics frequently given scant attention);

ä its failure to internalize monitoring and evaluationof the impact of its trade measures;

ä the lack of a secure financial mechanism to ensureinvestment in implementation and enforcement;

ä the inordinate amount of time the Parties spenddiscussing a tiny minority of species (most of themlarge, grey mammals);

ä the inevitable limitations of a Convention text writ-ten three decades ago, in the Parties’ reticence toapply proven regulatory measures to commercialnatural resource sectors such as fisheries and tim-ber trades; and

ä its perceived isolation from other multilateral in-stitutions of importance in ensuring sustainable useof biodiversity.

The way forward

So how should we move forward? Continue tosqueeze the best possible result from CITES as itstands? Scrap CITES and write a new wildlife tradetreaty? Migrate CITES to become a protocol of theConvention on Biological Diversity and thereby placeits role in a wider conservation and sustainable devel-opment context?

None of these routes is an obvious favourite. Thefirst appears safe, but presents no clear solution formany of the weaknesses noted above. However, theother two options face what could be insurmount-able obstacles likely to arise from a rewriting process.The last, relatively minor, amendment made to thetext of CITES in 1983 is still not in force almost 20years later, ratifications not having been made byenough of the Parties at that time.

Whichever route is chosen, and it may involve ele-ments of all three, there is an urgent need for govern-ments to rationalize the approaches to conservationand sustainable development they pursue in differentmultilateral fora. This is not a matter of judging which

What about us? CITES is sometimes criticised for spending a great deal of timediscussing ‘large grey mammals’ and not enough on smaller, less popularspecies. Pictured: the Apollo butterfly Parnassius apollo (Appendix II) from theEastern Caucasus, Georgia.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/HA

RTM

UT

JUN

GIU

S


Plants from a nursery near Rio de Janeiro are prepared for shipment. Gettingaccurate trade data is a challenge, requiring standardized procedures and agood knowledge of taxonomy.

For the hard-pressed government official trying todetermine the taxonomy of the latest species pro-posed for export, and the equally hard-pressed cus-toms officer at the final destination, tracking CITEStrade is a challenge.

Yet the process is at the heart of CITES, helpingParties to assess the legality and sustainability of tradedspecimens.

Since the Convention came into force 27 years ago,more than five million records have been entered inthe CITES trade database, from country reports labo-riously derived from paper certificates (see page 13).The levels of reportable CITES trade continue to in-crease as more species are added to the Appendices,and could soon jump a notch if commercially impor-tant marine fish species are included.

The increasing levels of trade, for an increasingnumber of species, place a heavy burden on data gath-ering, while limits on the timeliness and accuracy oftrade data hamper decision-making processes.

Decision-making tool

These trade data are not just a historical record, butalso serve as an important tool to guide conservationand wildlife trade policy and formulate resource man-agement decisions.

Collecting these reports quickly and accurately andputting the resulting data at the fingertips of policy-makers and resource managers is a priority of CITES.Fortunately, the success and ubiquity of the WorldWide Web in the 21st century provide us with the op-portunity and challenge to do this.

But a tracking system is only as good as the infor-mation on which it is based. Building the technicalcapacity of trade tracking is closely linked to improv-ing the decision-making processes leading up to thetrade. There is no point in having the timely collec-tion of inaccurate information!

So how can we improve our performance?

Faster, fairer, smarter

Changing the way documents are issued and proc-essed may be the answer. Permit data that are entered

institution is most important or performs best. Thefundamental conservation concerns that CITES wasdeveloped to address and many of its specific regula-tory provisions remain as relevant and important to-day as they were in the early 1970s when theConvention was developed.

To succeed in the long term, however, the coop-eration, energy and ambition exhibited in the CITESforum must be applied in future in a working envi-ronment where the place of overexploitation among

wider causes of biodiversity loss is recognised, whereadaptive regulatory approaches are applied in thecontext of other conservation strategies, where soundconservation and economic strategies are not con-strained by fear of conflict with WTO and where deci-sions reflect wider sustainable development goals andthe socio-economic factors that will inevitably shapetheir effectiveness.

Steven Broad is Executive Directorof TRAFFIC International.

Trade tracking in the 21st centuryStephen V. Nash

into a common electronic database before or as thepermits are issued could provide much more timelyinformation on authorized trade.

Such a central permit database could also pro-vide a means to issue documents directly throughInternet connections. This would further help withstandardizing forms and content, and help preventtypographic errors.

While the idea of a central database raises security,confidentiality and sovereignty concerns, such ascheme is no more demanding in terms of technol-ogy than e-commerce or on-line banking, both ofwhich are increasingly commonplace.

This system would provide data on the basis ofdocuments issued. However, specimens and quanti-ties in trade may be less than what was originally au-thorized, for a variety of reasons. It will be necessaryto collect information on the actual trade itself, onexport and import.

One possibility is to convert document data intomachine-readable bar codes, a system already in

CIT

ES

/GE

R V

AN

VLI

ET

LOOKING AHEAD


The future of CITES: a personal perspectiveJim Armstrong

It was back in 1994 when I was first asked about thefuture of CITES. The BBC was interviewing partici-pants at COP9 in Fort Lauderdale, after the watersheddecision to adopt new criteria for listing species onthe CITES Appendices.

I was a member of the Australian delegation then,and Chair of the CITES Plants Committee, and I hadjust finished chairing the Criteria Working Group. Itwas this working group that had successfully formu-lated the details of the Resolution (Conf. Res 9.24)subsequently adopted by the Parties. Since manyparticipants had believed that the new criteriaresolution had little if any chance of being adopted,the unanimous support for the re-crafted proposalcame as a real surprise. I realized then that CITES had‘come of age’ and that it could evolve to take effectivedecisions that had a sound basis in science.

So, being in a buoyant mood and hearing in thebackground the sound of my namesake LouisArmstrong, singing “I see trees of green… ”, I launchedinto a spirited support of CITES. I even suggested thatCITES was the most effective international environ-ment instrument working to conserve the world’s bi-otic resources. CITES’ future lay in its ability to addressthe ever-changing threats to these resources.

A few years later, in 1996, I joined the CITES Secre-tariat. Although I now see the Convention from acompletely different perspective, my enthusiasm forit has never waned.

But has CITES a future in the new millennium? Canit continue to evolve to deal with the new and verypervasive threats facing the world’s biota?

The simple answer is a resounding yes! But weneed to understand the path CITES has forged over

LOOKING AHEAD

Medicinals market in Sao Paulo, Brazil: all CITES medicinal plants werereviewed by the German Scientific Authority from 1996 to 1999 (see page 17).Thanks to such rigorous review processes coupled with the new criteria, CITES’decisions are now firmly grounded in science.

The future of permits?

widespread use (consider for example the worldwidetracking of shipments by commercial couriercompanies). Data could be collected electronically onexit and entry by border authorities with relativelyminimal equipment, software and training, and thentransmitted to the central database.

Getting the ‘big picture’

The end result would be up-to-date global informa-tion on potential and actual trade, available to policy-makers and resource managers. This would beparticularly useful in managing resources that areshared among several countries, since it would bepossible to see and analyse the ‘big picture’ beforemaking national-level decisions.

Direct electronic ‘capture’ of data and its centrali-zation could also eliminate the need for separate an-nual reports, and this would help relieve the growingreporting burden brought on by an increasing numberof treaties and international commitments. It couldalso reduce or eliminate the need for marking or tag-ging or additional certification.

New possibilities

These ideas were not within the realm of possibilitywhen CITES came into force in 1975, but everythinghas changed. With the emergence of the World WideWeb, the prospect of globally coordinating the issu-ance of documents, and providing accurate, timelyand easy access to trade data is not so remote.

Twenty-seven years of CITES implementation havedemonstrated that a permit system for regulating tradein wild resources is a sound approach that providesfor consistency and fairness in its application. Forthis reason, improved trade tracking is one area whereCITES must, and can, be brought into the 21st century.

Stephen V. Nash is Chief of theCapacity Building Unit, CITES Secretariat.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/ED

WA

RD

PA

RK

ER


the past 29 years, before we can see clearly the path itis now taking, or the direction that we might wish it totake in the new millennium.

A misconception

The common misconception is that CITES regulatesinternational trade only in endangered species. Sincespecies in Appendix II and III of CITES are not endan-gered, but may become threatened with extinctionunless their international trade is regulated, the cor-rect perception is that CITES regulates trade in spe-cies of conservation concern.

The term ‘endangered’ is indeed included in thetitle of the treaty, and this is the source of the miscon-ception. It is not practical to change the name of theConvention, but the name is one of the great stum-bling blocks with the trade community – it is difficultfor traders to embrace CITES as a marketing tool cer-tifying that their Appendix II traded specimens havebeen harvested sustainably.

Here lies the greatest challenge for CITES over thecoming years, namely, how to engage the trade com-munity to ensure that significantly traded CITESspecies are managed sustainably.

Is sustainability CITES’ business?

The issue of sustainability has had a chequered his-tory in CITES. Since the term ‘sustainable use’ is notmentioned in the text of the Convention, some haveargued that, unlike the Rio Conventions such as theConvention on Biological Diversity, CITES was neverintended as an instrument to support sustainable use.

I disagree.We need to remember that CITES was established

well before the concept of sustainable developmentwas promoted. Article IV of the Convention mandatesthat the export of any specimen of an Appendix II-

listed species can only occur when the ScientificAuthority of the State of export has advised that suchexport “will not be detrimental to the survival of thatspecies” (see page 4).

This enlightened phrase characterizes the essenceof the concept of sustainable use, and CITES movedto do this well before the idea of sustainability wasconceived.

To date the Convention has failed to promote thisprinciple effectively, but I am convinced that the im-portance of this idea will be realized as one of thefundamental strengths of the Convention in the com-ing years. Most of the 30,000-plus species regulatedby CITES are in Appendix II and it is this fact thatpositions CITES as an effective sustainable develop-ment tool. Article IV is a cornerstone of the Conven-tion. When applied correctly by an exporting Party,the Article IV provisions of CITES are, quite simply, acertification of sustainability!

New strengthsSo, what are the other strengths that CITES will de-velop in the new millennium? I see some obviousadvances:

Thankfully, the historic distinction between animalsand plants in the Convention is disappearing. Al-though we see their separate treatment now in vari-ous CITES Resolutions and Decisions, there is nopractical need, for example, to address ‘animals bredin captivity’ and ‘artificially propagated plants’ sepa-rately. This practice is unnecessarily duplicative andonly serves to perpetuate the myth that we are deal-ing with uniquely different biotic entities that requireseparate or biologically different procedures in CITES.Importantly, this stereotype was rejected in the newlisting criteria, which applied a unified scientific ap-proach to the world’s biotic resources.

Inspector from the US Fish and Wildlife Service examines seized wildlife products.

US

FWS

/JO

HN

AN

D K

AR

EN

HO

LLIN

GS

WO

RTH


I believe that we will soon see a coalescence of thecurrently separate Animals and Plants Committeesinto a single CITES Scientific Committee, with the jobof providing objective scientific advice to the CITESParties. To complement this new approach, CITESimplementation should be coordinated through a newCITES Technical Committee that will move to assistParties on implementation and compliance issues thatare inappropriately referred at present to the Animalsor Plants Committees.

The Convention’s power to deal with ineffective im-plementation is one of the great successes of CITES.With the establishment of the new Scientific and Tech-nical Committees a new synergy will emerge in theConvention between policy and science, so essentialto ensure effective natural resource management.

The integration of science and implementation hasalready started in CITES and the trend will developfurther as the Convention’s sustainable developmentagenda progresses and matures.

The current strength of the Review of SignificantTrade process in CITES will be greatly enhanced inthis new millennium. Innovations like the currentmove to country reviews (as in the recent case for Madagascar), and the very successful regional pro-

grammes – such as that for sturgeons in the CaspianSea (see page 25) – have shown how critical conserva-tion issues can be effectively addressed through CITES.

Clearly, such innovative approaches will be appliedmore broadly in the Convention when the success ofthis approach is more widely appreciated.

Finally, the CITES ranching provisions will be recog-nised in the Convention as one of the most innovativemeasures for improving in situ conservation of CITES-listed species. The problem is that ranching is onlyforeseen by CITES as a measure to facilitate the trans-fer of animal species from Appendix I to II, when itcould in fact be developed as a system for the sustain-able management of species already in Appendix II.

The ranching provisions are readily applicable toplants, and since the conservation role of artificiallyproduced specimens is limited, CITES Parties shouldbe encouraged in the future to establish effectiveranching programmes to ensure the sustainable de-velopment of the biotic resources that they manage.

A green future

CITES will meet its sustainable development agendaonly when it manages to integrate completely its in-novative biotrade initiatives with the laudable goals ofsustainable conservation, economic development andsocial well-being.

This is the direction for CITES in the new millen-nium. It is the direction that all multilateral environ-ment agreements are attempting to take. I would liketo think that CITES will be the first to get there!

“I see trees of green… ”

Jim Armstrong is Deputy SecretaryGeneral, CITES Secretariat.

Some potential economic instruments to promoteconservation of Appendix I species

Assignment of well-defined property and use rights. Poachersharvesting Appendix I species under open access conditions canmake a lot of money with a minimum investment. The profit margincan be so high that it does not matter what efforts they have to maketo evade enforcement controls. The assignment of property rightscan help to optimize enforcement efforts by providing resource own-ers (i.e. local communities or the private sector) with an incentive toprotect ‘their’ resources. However if discriminatory or not well de-signed, these incentives could negatively affect market access orreduce economic welfare.

Use of managed wild populations. This is perhaps the mostpromising approach for in situ conservation of Appendix I speciesprovided that it is accompanied by improved conservation manage-ment. Revenues for conservation could be generated through thenon-commercial sale of breeding rights or hunting rights. However,benefits for local people would depend on the ability to open avenuesof trade for non-commercial purposes.

Ecotourism. For this to succeed, governments must find ways todistribute the gains from tourism to the wildlife conservation pro-grammes and the welfare of local communities through employment,compensation fees and social service programmes. Currently a largeproportion of the revenue remains outside the country with the touroperator.

Captive breeding. Most such operations exist in the consumercountries, with few in the range states. To contribute more to in situconservation, they must involve the local people of the range states.

Juan Carlos Vasquez is Legal and Trade Policy Officer,Legislation and Compliance Unit, CITES Secretariat.

Whereas trade restrictions can encourage ex situartificial propagation that does not provide benefits torange states, CITES ranching provisions promote in situconservation. Pictured: North American cactus speciesfrom a nursery in the Canary Islands on sale at a GranCanaria duty-free shop.

LOOKING AHEAD

IUC

N/W

EN

DY

STR

AH

M


As many of us were returning exhaustedand exhilarated from Johannesburg, asmall team of IUCN and TRAFFIC staffand volunteer experts was rushing tomeet an important deadline. The Analy-ses of Proposals to Amend the CITESAppendices were due for the forthcom-ing 12th Conference of the Partiesto CITES.

Their work brought home an impor-tant point: while we were seeking to in-fluence the debate at an internationalsummit, the crucial ‘nuts and bolts’ workof the Union, on which we largely baseour reputation, was proceeding asalways.

The Analyses exemplify one of IUCN’smost important services to the environ-mental community: providing objective,scientifically rigorous and trusted assess-ments of the status of nature, used tounderpin major decisions of the conser-vation community. IUCN’s review workcan involve everything from species andecosystems to the policies of authoritiesentrusted with their protection and management. An-other example which quickly comes to mind is ourannual evaluation of the proposals for natural WorldHeritage sites for UNESCO.

This is a service which the Union is proud to offer.Some of our critics, however, might see this as evi-dence of IUCN’s “split personality”: on one side theanalytical authority, on the other the passionate ad-vocate of biodiversity conservation as echoed in thegenerous volunteerism of our expert networks andthe tireless campaigning of many of our members.

But I would argue that there is no split down themiddle of the Union, nor are we straddling a fencebetween two sides. We are, in fact, bridging the gapbetween the heart and mind of conservation.

Finding common ground

To turn back to CITES as an example: our hard-nosedanalysis of the merits of the proposals in no wayundermines our concern for the safeguarding of indi-vidual species, whether threatened by trade or not.

But saving species requires more than goodintentions and fervent convictions; it takes all the clearthinking, sound knowledge and reliable data we canmuster.

One of the Union’s most important roles is that offair broker between those whose activities mightthreaten nature – whether for profit or sustenance –and those whose main concern is the unprecedentedglobal extinction crisis we now face.

In Johannesburg the world’s leaders committedthemselves to building partnerships, a key element ofwhich is finding common ground. They also commit-ted themselves to reducing biodiversity loss, if in arather half-hearted way. ‘Common ground’ is whereIUCN works, and biodiversity conservation is, ulti-mately, our reason for being there.

As the Parties to CITES gather in Santiago inNovember, they too will be performing their tradi-tional balancing act between competing interests. ButCITES is changing, as noted by many in previous arti-cles. Its influence is widening, its scope and activitiesare expanding. Every other conservation conventionfaces the same challenge to abandon the narrow fo-cus assigned to it in a different era of environmentalpolitics.

If CITES is at a crossroads, it has plenty of com-pany. As we move into a critical new round of tradeliberalization talks under the Doha agenda, environ-mentalists along with social development activists arebound to seek a more prominent place at the interna-tional negotiating table.

Conservation now faces the challenge of develop-ing strategic responses and substantive inputs for theglobal trade debate. CITES began as an idea and hasevolved into a global Convention with 160 Parties assignatories. We need similar creativity and ambition ifwe are to have an impact on the future of trade andsustainable development.

Achim Steiner is Director General of IUCN.

Between mind and heart

Achim Steiner

LOOKING AHEAD

These black rhinos Diceros bicornis are under 24-hour armed guard to protect them frompoachers. Wildlife conservation makes sense ecologically, economically, and ethically.

WW

F-C

AN

ON

/MA

RTI

N H

AR

VE

Y


IN PRINT

http://www.iucn.org/bookstore

The IUCN Publications Service Unit is the distributorof CITES publications.

Visit http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/CITES-publications-index.htm The new World Conservation Bookstore Publications

Catalogue is now available. Contact: [email protected]

CITES Handbook

The CITES Handbook has been compiled to providethe Parties to CITES and others with the most essen-tial texts for CITES implementation in one singlereference book. It includes the Convention text,Appendices, standard CITES export/import permit,re-export certificate, and Resolutions and the Deci-sions of the 11th Conference of the Parties.

ISBN 2-88323-009-9, 2001; 295 x 210mm, 304pp; £25,US$37.50; Order no. B1100; French Order no. B1102;Spanish Order no. B1101

The Evolution of CITES

6th Edition, 2001Willem WijnstekersThis comprehensive publication presentsa history of the evolution of CITES. It be-gins with the basics and guides the readerthrough its complex structure. The pro-visions of the Convention are clearly high-lighted in the book, and the numerousresolutions and decisions are explained.

No ISBN, 2001; 240 x 160mm, 492pp.,colour photos; £20, US$30; Order no.B1130

Checklist of CITES Species

Compiled by UNEP-World ConservationMonitoring Centre

This checklist provides alphabetical lists of the spe-cies of fauna and flora included in Appendices I, IIand III of CITES in order to help Management andScientific Authorities, customs officials, and all othersinvolved in implementing and enforcing the Conven-tion. The list provides not only the scientific namesbut also the common names in English, Spanish andFrench.

ISBN 1 899628 17 7, 2001; 295 x 210mm, 335pp.; £28,US$42; Order no. B576; trilingual edition (E/S/F).

Identification Manuals

These manuals are useful tools for Management andScientific Authorities, customs officials, and all othersinvolved in implementing and enforcing CITES. Withdrawings (black and white), maps and concise descrip-tions.Flora: £67, US$100 (1 binder); English Order no. B579;Spanish Order no. B578; French Order no. B577Fauna: English: £459, US$825 (8 binders); Order no.B289; French: £360, US$540 (6 binders); Order no. B410

The Birds of CITES and How to Identify Them

Johannes Erritzoe; illustrated by Helga Boullet Erritzoeand the author

With colour paintings and concise descriptions, thisrichly illustrated guide will help identify all the birdsincluded in the CITES Appendices.

ISBN 0 7188 28915, 1993; 300 x 210mm, 201pp.; £25,US$37.50; Order no. B286

CITES Guide to Plants in Trade

Compiled by Sabina Knees and Mike Read, edited byBrian Mathew

With the help of photographs and general descrip-tions, this guide is intended to assist customs officersand others involved in the control of plant trade toidentify a number of them, and to increase the aware-ness of the general public by drawing their attentionto those species that are endangered.

No ISBN, 1994; 295 x 210mm, 216 pp.; £31, US$46.50;Order no. B273

New catalogue

April 8, 2011 1

Internal Memo to the SSC Secretariat from the AfESG Programme Officer

IUCN/SSC AfESG’s Past and Present Engagement with CITES

Revised 8 April 2011 Introduction The AfESG has been involved with CITES for as long as elephant issues have been on the agenda. The elephant debate has shaped CITES, and it has also shaped the AfESG itself. At a general level, the AfESG has provided support to all levels of the Convention – Parties, the Secretariat and the Standing Committee, and continues to do so. We work very closely with the Secretariat, which while not always an easy relationship, has been productive and is essential for the AfESG to achieve its mission. The table below outlines our involvement in the past and present against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013. We have attempted to be completely factual in our recounting. First, I have provided a summary of our engagement with the CITES elephant trade monitoring programmes, which is a major part of our engagement with the Convention. Involvement in CITES elephant monitoring programmes IUCN, generally, and the AfESG, in particular, has been involved with the CITES monitoring programmes (MIKE and ETIS) from their conception to their formal establishment within CITES1. ETIS, originally the Bad Ivory Database System (BIDS), is managed by TRAFFIC, while the MIKE programme is managed by the CITES Secretariat with a Central Coordinating Unit based at UNEP in Nairobi. Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) governs MIKE and ETIS. While this Resolution does not formally include IUCN, its predecessor which mandated the work leading up to the establishment of MIKE and ETIS did include IUCN formally. Decision 15.74 directs the Standing Committee to evaluate whether a revision of 10.10 is necessary and to prepare recommendations for the CoP. The AfESG has been involved in gathering feedback from the range States (RS) on this possible revision and it is clear that the RS wish to see both IUCN and TRAFFIC enshrined in the revised resolution. The AfESG has been closely involved in the conception, design and evolution of these programmes, and a number of AfESG members, including the Chair, serve on the Technical Advisory Groups for both ETIS and MIKE. Serving on these TAGs is a large commitment of time and technical expertise. TAG members are involved in advising on both analytical and operational matters for ETIS and MIKE, and they review all analyses that are generated from the programmes. In the first phase of MIKE (MIKE I), the AfESG was closely involved in the baseline studies, and were central to designing and raising money for the second phase (MIKE II). IUCN has been involved in both operational and technical matters for MIKE II, under a formal MOU between the CITES Secretariat and IUCN. The IUCN regional programmes in Africa (ESARO and PACO) host the CITES MIKE Sub-Regional Support Units (SSUs) in Pretoria, Kampala, Yaoundé, and Ouagadougou, and the AfESG provides technical support to the programme. The objectives of MIKE are to:

i. measure and record levels and trends, and changes in levels and trends, of illegal hunting and trade in ivory in elephant range States, and in trade entrepôts;

ii. assess whether and to what extent observed trends are related to changes in the listing of elephant populations in the CITES Appendices and/or the resumption of legal international trade in ivory;

1 For reference, the resolution governing MIKE & ETIS is Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev CoP15) - http://www.cites.org/eng/res/10/10-10R15.shtml.

April 8, 2011 2

iii. establish an information base to support the making of decisions on appropriate management, protection and enforcement needs; and

iv. build capacity in range States. The AfESG is contracted on four main activities under MIKE II. These activities are:

1. AAED. The African Elephant Database (recently transformed into the African and Asian Elephant Database with a grant from the USFWS and co-financed by MIKE and the Asian Elephant Specialist Group) is the official repository of population data obtained through the MIKE programme in Africa. The AAED underpins the analyses that MIKE undertakes on ‘dead elephants’ with information on ‘live elephants’. This of course links into the information which ETIS has on the ivory trade. The AfESG’s database therefore serves as an integral part of the data needed to understand the ivory supply chain.

2. Elephant meat trade impact study. The AfESG has been undertaking a study into the impact of the elephant meat trade in Central Africa. This study, based on four country case studies, will be published in 2011.

3. Communication of MIKE activities. Both MIKE and ETIS publish reports in Pachyderm, the journal of the African elephant, African rhino and Asian rhino Specialist Groups every six months. This allows both programmes to get information on their activities and findings out to a wide audience without being constrained by CITES reporting and meeting schedules.

4. Support to African elephant range State meetings. Annual African elephant range State meetings have been held under MIKE II. These meetings bring together all 37 range States to discuss CITES matters, as well as general elephant conservation matters in a non-political atmosphere, as these meetings are not tied to CoPs or to listing proposals. The AfESG provides technical support to these meetings, contributing to the agenda, facilitating working sessions, and in some cases, chairing the plenary (which the AfESG Chair did on the last occasion in 2010). These meetings have helped to move forward a number of non-listing-related CITES Resolutions and Decisions (such as 14.75, 14.77, 14.79, and 15.74). The AfESG has also played a central role in rapporteuring these meetings and preparing meeting reports. Essentially, we work as a part of the CITES MIKE team.

The Chair and Programme Officer are also closely involved in a workshop in May 2011 to review the existing analytical and reporting systems and to find a road map for the way forward in providing technical information for decision-making on the trade in elephant specimens. The current phase of MIKE ends at the end of 2011. The CITES Secretariat is approaching the EU for further funding to continue the programme until at least CoP16 (2013). IUCN is involved in the development of this project proposal, as a key implementing and technical partner. The Chair of the AfESG is leading these negotiations (along with JC Vie from the Species Programme). MIKE is probably one of the largest programmes within CITES, with an annual operating budget of around 2.3 million Euro, and I cannot understate the contribution of IUCN, in particular the AfESG, to the MIKE programme, both historically and in the present. Finally, the AfESG Chair (and other AfESG members) provide advice and support to the MIKE-ETIS sub-group of the Standing Committee.

April 8, 2011 3

AfESG past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 Goals, Objectives and Indicators

AfESG Involvement Past Present

GOAL 1 - Ensure compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention Objective 1.1 Parties comply with their obligations under the Convention through appropriate policies, legislation and procedures

The Range States (RS) were directed by the CoP in Decision 14.75 to develop the African Elephant Action Plan (AEAP). The AfESG was contracted by the CITES Secretariat to facilitate this process, which we did in 2008 and 2009 at the African Elephant Meetings held under the auspices of the CITES MIKE programme.

1.1.1 The number of Parties that are in category 1 under the national legislation project.

The AfESG has facilitated national elephant management planning processes in many RS. In these plans, ensuring that legislation for CITES is in place is always a priority.

While the AfESG does not usually engage in issues of national legislation, the AfESG Chair and the USA Management Authority wrote to the CITES SG in 2010 regarding conflicting legislation in Thailand, which is contributing to the scale of the illegal trade in ivory in that country. The AfESG is often well-placed to hear from RS and other Parties about challenges in implementing CITES and to advise on the resources available for resolving these challenges. We continue to facilitate national elephant management planning processes, as in the past.

1.1.2 The number of Parties that have designated Management Authorities and Scientific Authorities.

N/A N/A

1.1.3 The number of Parties subject to CITES recommendations on trade.

N/A N/A

Objective 1.2 Parties have in place administrative procedures that are transparent, practical, coherent and user-friendly, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.

1.2.1 The number of Parties that have adopted standard transparent procedures for the timely issuance of permits in

The AfESG has been involved in one large controversy regarding the issuance of permits for live trade in elephants, in this case from Swaziland. Data from the

N/A

April 8, 2011 4



accordance with Article VI of the Convention.

AfESG African Elephant Database was used in support of the permit issuance, while the AfESG’s statement regarding captive elephant populations was used against the permit issuance. As a result of this, the AfESG was called into a legal process, which had political and funding implications.

1.2.2 The number of Parties making use of the simplified procedures provided for in Resolution Conf. 12.3 (Rev. CoP13).

N/A N/A

Objective 1.3 Implementation of the Convention at the national level is consistent with decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

The African Elephant Action Plan (under Objective 1.1) In addition, the Action plan for the control of trade in elephant ivory (Decision 13.26) resulted from issues raised at the first Range State Dialogue meeting and the AfESG was involved in formulating and advocating for this action plan.

The AfESG plays a watchdog role on Decision 13.26, along with ETIS.

1.3.1 The number of Parties that have implemented relevant Resolutions and Decisions of the Conference of the Parties.

Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) outlines the structure of MIKE and ETIS, both of which require Parties to report data on illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory. Outlined in the summary accompanying this table is AfESG’s engagement with MIKE & ETIS

Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP15) outlines the structure of MIKE and ETIS, both of which require Parties to report data on illegal killing and the illegal trade in ivory. Outlined in the summary accompanying this table is AfESG’s engagement with MIKE & ETIS

Objective 1.4 The Appendices correctly reflect the conservation needs of species.

1.4.1 The number and proportion of species that have been found to meet the criteria contained in Resolution Conf. 9.24 or its successors. This includes both the periodic review and amendment proposals.

Since the Appendix I listing in 1989, IUCN has not provided any recommendations on down listing proposals for the African elephant. Prior to the Panel of Experts process (Conf Resolution 10.9) Conf Resolution 7.9 outlined the process for consideration of elephant down listing proposals. The AfESG Secretariat has never assisted Parties with the drafting of proposals, although it is likely that AfESG members have. The AfESG’s African Elephant Database has always

The AfESG Secretariat does not assist Parties with the drafting of proposals, although it is likely that AfESG members do assist Parties to draft proposals. The IUCN/TRAFFIC analyses do not include analyses of down listing proposals for the African elephant, although we have in the past commented on whether the proposals meet the biological criteria. Conf. Resolution 10.9 outlines the process of review by a Panel of Experts, appointed by the Secretariat to review a variety of information and provide a report to the CoP.

April 8, 2011 5



been central to the decision-making process in CITES. In fact, early funders of the Database made clear that it needed to be developed in such a way that it would be useful for decision-making under CITES.

The Resolution directs the SC to consult UNEP, IUCN, and TRAFFIC before nominating the members of the Panel. Although not a requirement, there has always been at least one member of the AfESG on the Panel. The Panel of Experts report is usually only available just before the CoP and TRAFFIC and WWF wait for this report to make their recommendations on elephant down listing proposals. Of course, information from the AfESG’s African Elephant Database, MIKE and ETIS are vital to the Panel report and also to the debates at the CoP.


While the role of the AfESG (members and Secretariat) in the Appendix I listing of the African elephant in 1989 is very varied and somewhat unclear, it is very clear the impact the debate in 1989 and the listing had on the AfESG. It tore the SG apart, with all members resigning, from both sides of the debate. The current Chair was appointed at that time, and this very contentious debate has influenced the way in which the Group has been Chaired since then, which a close focus on the technical, rather than political.

N/A

Objective 1.5 Best available scientific information is the basis for non-detriment findings.

N/A The AfESG is required under Decision 14.78 to provide updated information on the status of the African elephant to the Standing Committee. This is subject to external funding being available. In addition, the AfESG Chair was offered a consultancy to recommend possible decision-making mechanisms for trade in ivory (see more in Decision 14.77). However, this would be way too controversial for the Chair to take on, but is an important piece of work that will influence the issue in the future, and the AfESG is likely to be asked to provide feedback on proposed mechanisms.

1.5.1 The number of surveys undertaken by exporting countries of: a) the

N/A N/A

April 8, 2011 6



population status as well as the trends and impact of trade upon Appendix-II species; and b) the status of and trend in Appendix I species and the impact of any recovery plans. 1.5.2 The number of Parties that have adopted standard procedures for making non-detriment findings.

N/A N/A

1.5.3 The number and proportion of annual export quotas based on population surveys.

N/A N/A

1.5.4 The number of Appendix-II species for which trade is determined to be non-detrimental to the survival of the species as a result of implementing recommendations from the Review of Significant Trade.

N/A N/A

Objective 1.6 Parties cooperate in managing shared wildlife resources.

Following an extremely acrimonious elephant debate at the 1994 CoP, a number of RS approached the Chair of the AfESG to ask if IUCN would facilitate a dialogue process. The original intention was to hold range state dialogues (RSD) intersessionally so as to have them separate from the CoP. However, due in part to budget considerations, every second RSD was held directly prior to the CoP. While the AfESG took a lead role in the initial RSDs, they were truly a joint effort of IUCN, with the Species Programme and the Regional Offices closely involved and IUCN’s regional representatives chairing working groups at the meetings. The RSD statement was an important output of each meeting, and at the meetings adjacent to CoPs, the rest of the Parties would respect the compromise reached by the RS, as outlined in the meeting statement. Control over this process became hotly contested. At CoP13 in 2004, the RS could not come to agreement on

Now that RSDs can only be called by the CoP or SC, the only times when range States come together outside of the contentious listing debates is the African elephant range State meetings, which have been convened under the CITES MIKE programme. From the beginning, the intention of the dialogue process was to provide a venue in which RS could build on the things that they have in common, rather than focusing on the things that divide them. The African elephant range State meetings, supported by the AfESG, do partially achieve this goal and have moved forward a number of important items for the African elephant (both related to CITES and not).

April 8, 2011 7



the statement and the CITES Secretariat did not provide support to the RS to try to come to an agreement. As a result, the RSD process, as we knew it, died. At CoP14, a new Resolution (Resolution Conf. 14.5) was adopted, describing a very specific type of meeting. RSDs can only be called for in relation to a listing proposal and must be called by the CoP or the SC.

1.6.1 The number of bilateral and multilateral cooperative agreements that specifically provide for co-management of shared species by range states

There are many transboundary populations of the African elephant, and the AfESG has played a central role in facilitating dialogue and shared management of these populations. We have helped RS to prepare regional management plans in west, central and southern Africa, and in west Africa in particular, we facilitated the development of a transboundary corridor action plan, as well as the development of an inter-governmental MOU on shared elephant populations (signed under CMS in 2005). Whenever we assist with the development of national action plans, we ensure that transboundary concerns are taken into account, and we are continually assisting RS with a number of specific transboundary challenges.

As in the past, we continue to support transboundary elephant management.

1.6.2 The number of cooperative management plans including recovery plans in place for shared populations of CITES listed species

1.6.3 The number of workshops and other capacity-building activities that bring range states together to address the conservation and management needs of shared species.

Many workshops have been held, with the AfESG assisting to raise funds and to facilitate these interactions and their outputs. There have been too many to list here.

These activities continue, where RS request our help and funding allows.

Objective 1.7 Parties are enforcing the Convention to reduce illegal wildlife trade.

The AfESG raises any law enforcement issues to the CITES Secretariat. The AfESG is often well placed to find out about problems of illegal trade, through its expert network operating on the ground.

The AfESG raises any law enforcement issues to the CITES Secretariat. The AfESG is often well placed to find out about problems of illegal trade, through its expert network operating on the ground.

April 8, 2011 8



1.7.1 The number of Parties that have, or are covered by: – regional enforcement action plans; – regional enforcement networks; – national enforcement action plans; and– national inter-agency enforcement coordination networks.

The Lusaka Agreement Task Force is an important grouping, but the AfESG has had little engagement with them.

Decision 15.72 calls for the establishment of a joint CITES Ivory and Rhinoceros Enforcement Task Force.

1.7.2 The number of Parties with designated national CITES enforcement focal points.

N/A N/A

1.7.3 The number of Parties that have criminal law and procedures in place for investigating and penalizing CITES offences.

N/A N/A

1.7.4 The number of Parties making use of risk assessment in order to better target their CITES enforcement effort.

N/A N/A


1.8.1 The number of Parties with national and regional training programmes and information resources in place to implement CITES including the making of non-detriment findings, issuance of permits and enforcement.

N/A N/A

1.8.2 The number of training and capacity-building programmes conducted or assisted by the Secretariat.

The MIKE programme provides significant capacity-building support to RS and the AfESG involvement in this is outlined above.

The MIKE programme provides significant capacity-building support to RS and the AfESG involvement in this is outlined above.

1.8.3 The proportion of Parties having received capacity building support from the Secretariat on request.

N/A N/A

GOAL 2 - Secure the necessary financial resources and means for the operation and implementation of the Convention Objective 2.1 Financial resources are sufficient to ensure operation of the Convention.

April 8, 2011 9



2.1.1 The number of Parties meeting their obligations with regard to their assessed contributions to the Trust Fund.

N/A N/A

2.1.2 The percentage of the work programme agreed by the Conference of the Parties that is fully funded.

N/A N/A

Objective 2.2 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to ensure compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the Convention.

When the Elephant and Rhino Fund was established at UNEP to assist with conservation challenges, under the auspices of CITES, the AfESG was asked to assist with prioritization of projects for funding, and this process eventually collapsed, in part because the resources did not match the needs, and the politicization of the process.

Decision 14.75 called for development of the AEAP (as referenced above) and Decision 14.79 calls for the establishment of an African Elephant Fund. The AfESG has been working to assist the Secretariat on the details of the Fund. At the last African elephant range States meeting, the AfESG Chair played an important role in facilitating decisions on the Steering Committee membership for the Fund.

2.2.1 The number of Parties with dedicated staff and funding for Management Authorities, Scientific Authorities and wildlife trade enforcement agencies.

N/A N/A

2.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken one or more of the following activities in the past two years: – increased the budget for activities; – hiring more staff; – development of implementation tools; – improvement of national networks; - purchase of technical equipment for monitoring and enforcement; and – computerization.

N/A MIKE supports Parties to purchase technical equipment.

Objective 2.3 Sufficient resources are secured at the national/international levels to implement capacity-building programmes.

2.3.1 The number of capacity building activities mandated by Resolutions and

The AfESG assisted in raising funds for MIKE I and played a significant role in assisting the CITES

The AfESG is working closely with the CITES Secretariat to secure funding from the European

April 8, 2011 10



Decisions that are fully funded. Secretariat to secure funding from the European Commission to support MIKE II.

Commission to support MIKE III.

GOAL 3 - Contribute to significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by ensuring that CITES and other multilateral instruments and processes are coherent and mutually supportive Objective 3.1 Cooperation between CITES and international financial mechanisms and other related institutions is enhanced in order to support CITES-related conservation and sustainable development projects, without diminishing funding for currently prioritized activities.

The AfESG has always been engaged in bilateral cooperation on elephant conservation, both within the CITES realm and outside of it.

N/A

3.1.1 The number of Parties funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions to develop activities that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements.

N/A N/A

3.1.2 The number of international projects funded by international financial mechanisms and other related institutions that include CITES-related conservation and sustainable development elements.

N/A N/A

3.1.3 The number of countries and institutions that have provided additional funding for conservation and sustainable development projects in order to further the objectives of the Convention.

N/A N/A

April 8, 2011 11



Objective 3.2 Awareness of the role and purpose of CITES is increased globally.

MIKE and ETIS updates are published in Pachyderm every six months. The AfESG is facilitating an initiative of technical exchange between ivory ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’. This initiative is focused on raising awareness of travelers between Africa and East Asia, not only on the consequences for African elephants of the illegal trade, but also to educate them on CITES and the legal consequences of engaging in the illegal trade.

3.2.1 The number of Parties that have been involved in CITES awareness raising campaigns to bring about better accessibility to and understanding by the wider public of the Convention requirements.

N/A N/A

3.2.2 The number of Parties that have undertaken market surveys indicating the public’s understanding of the role and purpose of CITES.

N/A N/A

3.2.3 The number of visits on the Secretariat’s website.

N/A N/A

3.2.4 The number of Parties with web pages on CITES and its requirements.

N/A N/A

Objective 3.3 Cooperation with relevant international environmental, trade and development organizations is enhanced.

3.3.1 The number of biodiversity conservation goals, objectives and principles of CITES and those of relevant multilateral environmental, trade and development agreements and conventions that are identified and

The AfESG has worked with the EAC, SADC, CEEAC, and ECOWAS on elephant issues, and this includes CITES issues.

N/A

April 8, 2011 12



implemented in an integrated manner. 3.3.2 The number of additional biodiversity conservation, trade and development goals, scientific and technical programmes that integrate CITES requirements agreed between environmental and trade agreements and programmes and international financial mechanisms.

N/A N/A

3.3.3 The number of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations participating in and/or funding CITES workshops and other training and capacity-building activities.

N/A The AfESG participates in many MIKE workshops and meetings. In particular, the AfESG is contracted to provide technical support to the African elephant range States meetings which are convened every year by the CITES MIKE programme. More is outlined in the summary above.

Objective 3.4 The contribution of CITES to the relevant Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development goals set at WSSD is strengthened by ensuring that international trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted at sustainable levels.

The following indicators apply to this objective: 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.5.4, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 2.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.1 and 3.5.2.

N/A N/A

3.4.1 Improving conservation status of CITES-listed species as shown by tools such as the IUCN Red List Index.

The AfESG is the Red List Authority for the African elephant.

The AfESG is the Red List Authority for the African elephant.

Objective 3.5 Parties and the Secretariat cooperate with other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources, as appropriate, in order to

The AfESG played a central role in the West African MOU to conserve shared populations of the African elephant under CMS. We have also played a role in helping to interface between CMS and CITES in the west African sub-region, participating in a workshop of

The AfESG is participating in a joint workshop in June 2011 which will bring together the CBD Bushmeat Liaison Working Group and the CITES Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group. We will of course contribute information on our work from our study into the impact

April 8, 2011 13



achieve a coherent and collaborative approach to species which can be endangered by unsustainable trade, including those which are commercially exploited.

CMS and CITES MIKE focal points in 2009 to identify shared priorities and potential for shared projects. This is in support of Resolution Conf 13.3, although African elephants are not identified in that Resolution as a priority for CMS – CITES cooperation.

of the elephant meat trade in Central Africa (funded under the CITES MIKE programme).

3.5.1 The number of cooperative actions taken to prevent species becoming threatened by unsustainable trade.

N/A N/A

3.5.2 The number of times other relevant international organizations and agreements dealing with natural resources are consulted on issues relevant to species subject to unsustainable trade.

N/A N/A

Abbreviation and Acronyms:

AC – Animals Committee

AfESG – African Elephant Specialist Group

AfRSG – African Rhino Specialist Group

AsRSG – Asian Rhino Specialist Group

APC – Animals and Plants Committees

BfN ‐ Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Germany – Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

CEEAC – Economic Community of Central African States

CMS – Convention on Migratory Species

COMIFAC – Central African Forests Commission

EAC – East African Community

EC – European Community

ECOWAS – Economic Community of West African States

ELC – Environmental Law Centre

ETIS – Elephant Trade Information System

EU – European Union

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization

GEF – Global Environment Facility

GWSG – Grouper and Wrasse Specialist Group

ITTO – International Tropical Timber Organization

IUU – Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported fishing

MPSG – Medicinal Plant Specialist Group

MIKE – Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants

NBSAP – National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

NDF – Non‐Detriment Finding

NOAA – National Oceaniac and Atmospheric Administration

PC – Plants Committee

RS – Range States

SADC – Southern African Development Community

SC – Standing Committee

SG – Specialist Group

SPC – Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SPREP – South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

TFTSG – Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group

UNCTAD – United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNDP – United Nations Development Programme

UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO – United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNODC – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

USAID – United States Agency for International Development

WCO – World Customs Organization

a review of iucn engagement in the convention on ......danna leaman, phil mcgowan, david minter,...

Documents