Wildlife Trade - CITES Issues

Information and Discussions on Endangered Species
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Preparations and Progress - CITES COP17

Post by Lisbeth »

Image

Fate of Africa’s Elephants Hangs in the Balance after COP 17

A golden opportunity to stop the catastrophic decline of Africa’s elephants had been missed as CoP17 wrapped up in Johannesburg on Wednesday.

Following the results from the Great Elephant Census as well as the IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report which show that roughly thirty percent of elephants have been wiped out since 2007, this conference was ideally placed to provide full international protection for the beleagured pachyderms.

Some gains were made for protection of elephants however, the most important proposal – the call for a total and permanent ban on ivory sales – was rejected.

The failed proposal, presented by twelve African elephant range states (as well as Sri Lanka) and supported by eighteen other African countries united under the African Elephant Coalition, aimed to include all Africa’s elephants through the transfer from Appendix II (which allows for a regulated trade in ivory) to Appendix I of the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

“The failure of this proposal is a tragedy for the elephants and all persons that are fighting to save elephants” said South African elephant expert Dr Marion Garai.” Botswana must be lauded for supporting the rest of Africa however the Southern African states opposing an uplisting clearly only had their personal interest in mind and not those of the elephants. The failure of this proposal has sent the entirely wrong message to the poaching syndicates who are the only winners in this war.

The Good News

There was some good news as counter-proposals tabled by Namibia and Zimbabwe calling for an unqualified legal trade in ivory were roundly rejected by the 158 delegations attending the conference. The same treatment was meted out for a document issued by South Africa asking for a continuation of a Decision Making Mechanism for discussion for a future legal trade in ivory.

Then nations, led by the Chinese delegation, committed to closing down their domestic ivory markets and there was broad agreement as to the future regulation and management of ivory stockpiles with positive discussions about the need for stockpile destruction.

The big news of the conference was Botswana’s announcement by Tshekedi Khama, Minister of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, who threw Botswana’s weight behind the Appendix I proposal just before voting on it commenced. It was a significant turn-around for a country who once favoured a legal trade. In the past, Botswana, along with Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa had particpated in the limited, legal sales of their ivory stockpiles to Japan and China.

Botswana boasts an estimated130,451 elephants – one third of the entire continent’s population – and has long been regarded as the bastion of Africa’s elephants. But Khama is concerned about the increase in poaching that has seen his country lose 20,000 elephants in five years. The Botswanan minister believes “poaching will only be stopped if members vote for an Appendix I listing for all Africa’s elephants.”

In the lunch interim before voting began, Robert Hepworth, former CITES official and advisor for David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, hoped Botswana’s surprise announcement “would attract enough votes to get this crucial decision made.”

The Bad News

However, the proposal was defeated by the bloc vote of the European Union.

The EU participated as a full Party with 28 Member States in one voting bloc for the first time at a CoP. The organization all but upended the way voting traditionally occurs at CITES. By wielding 28 guaranteed votes, instead of individual Parties, the European Union held all the cards at voting time. The pattern of the conference was consistent: Whichever way the EU decided to vote on whatever species, the outcome was always in the EU’s favour.

When it came to voting for elephants, the EU opposed the Appendix I listing, arguing that the elephant populations of the four Appendix II countries were healthy, well-managed and did not meet the biological criteria of a decline of 50% over three generations (or 75 years in the case of elephants) for an uplisting to Appendix I.

Directly as a result of the EU vote, the proposal failed to gain the necessary two-thirds majority to pass.

After the vote, a visibly angry Hepworth said: “A combination of European Commission bureaucrats and EU ministers managed the triple whammy at CITES of offending many African governments, blocking the proposal that would safeguard elephants for good, and weakening the positive decisions on closing the domestic ivory markets and discussions over stockpiles.”

Khama was baffled by the logic of the EU. “How can the EU vote against our desire for a full protection of elephants when we have all the elephants?”

Together with Botswana, the African countries that support an Appendix I listing comprise of almost 80% of the African elephant range.

“The European Union’s position is shocking,” said Vera Weber, President of Fondation Franz Weber. “Their patronizing and colonialist attitude to the vast majority of African elephant range states calling for an Appendix I listing is shameful.”

With the split-listing of elephants still in place, the possibility for a future sale of stockpiles of any of the four Appendix II listed countries to an approved buyer remains possible.

While much attention has been focused on China, the dirty secrets of Japan’s illegal ivory trade, have just been revealed and clearly demonstrates Japan’s unwillingness to take the action required to control its’ thriving and largely unregulated market.

Khama warns: “These member state delegates, when all they get together again at the next CoP in three years’ time, will find that elephant numbers have continued to free-fall as they have over the past decade. And that day,” he says, “they will find also that it will be too late to save the elephants”.

Read the original article: http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/2016/10 ... er-cop-17/


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Preparations and Progress - CITES COP17

Post by Lisbeth »

Elephant Conservation – A Continental Imperative

Image

Africans are lambasting the EU for voting against a proposal to protect elephants. But perhaps they can learn something from the EU by working together.

The proposal to list all African elephants in Appendix I was rejected at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Johannesburg this week. An Appendix I listing would have effectively banned international trade in ivory as well as trophy hunting of elephants. Put forward by the African Elephant Coalition, its 29 members are primarily African countries suffering severe elephant losses through poaching.

The USA and China voted against the proposal despite earlier commitments to close global domestic ivory markets. Joining them were Russia, Korea, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Norway. But the clincher was the EU. Voting not as individual countries but as a block, the EU’s 28 votes were pivotal in denying the two thirds majority needed to put all African elephants in Appendix I. The overall vote was 62 in favour, 44 against and 12 abstained.

Among the African countries that voted against the proposal were South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe who have relatively healthy elephant populations listed in Appendix II (with an annotation that prevents any trade in ivory). South Africa puts their elephant population at 27 000, Namibia at 22 711, and Zimbabwe at 82 000+.

These countries aim to keep elephant hunting on the cards and ultimately find a mechanism to trade their vast stockpiles of ivory, as they did with the endorsement of CITES in 1999 and 2008; these one off sales are believed to have fueled the recent poaching crisis by raising demand.

The CITES result comes in the wake of the first comprehensive African elephant census ever conducted. The Great Elephant Census (GEC) conducted aerial counts in 18 countries tallying a total of 352,271 African savanna elephants in 93% of the species’ range. This equates to a 30% decline in African savanna elephants over the past 7 years – a loss of about 144 000.

Most significant was the number of dead elephants counted. Statistically a carcass ratio greater than 8% indicates a declining population. The carcass ratio calculated for the entire GEC was 11.9% +-0.2%.

Publicity over the GEC findings, and distribution of the data, has been widespread and potentially influential in persuading elephant range states and other nations to raise the protection of elephants to the highest degree. On the heels of the survey, a International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) conference in Hawaii saw an overwhelming majority of members (91%) vote in favour of closing domestic ivory markets. The sense was that the IUCN vote would sway CITES when it came to domestic and international ivory trade.

A resolution recommending the closure of global domestic ivory markets was indeed adopted at CITES. Proposals from Namibia and Zimbabwe, which would have relaxed rules for international trade, were soundly defeated. It seemed logical that closing all channels for international ivory trade would be next. But logic did not prevail.

Nations opposing the up-listing argued that it would be a setback for their respective sustainable utilization policies, which has allowed them to invest in conservation. South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, Dr. Edna Molewa hailed the decision as “a victory for scientific, evidence-based decision making.”

The EU echoed South Africa stating that the respective nation’s elephant populations did not meet the criteria for up-listing, chiefly that (i) the size of the wild population is small, (ii) the area of distribution is restricted and (iii) there is an observed, inferred, or projected marked decline in the population size in the wild.

“The EU was desperate not to offend the host country,” said Robert Hepworth, former Chair of the CITES Standing Committee and Senior Advisor to David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation. “They ignored a million strong petition, a resolution from the European Parliament, the views of a large majority of African Range states, and even the brave intervention of South Africa’s neighbor, Botswana. Surely Botswana has a lot more to risk than the EU in its relations with large neighbors.”

Botswana’s vote in favour of the proposal was the other surprise. They are home to the single largest population of African elephants in the world (at least 130,000) and their anti-poaching operations are impressive, largely because their defense force is involved. Many expected Botswana to align itself with South Africa and Namibia who argue that their elephant populations are growing because of successful conservation efforts, funded in part by ivory sales in the past.

“Although Botswana has previously supported limited trade, we recognize we can no longer support the sale of ivory. We cannot deal with this issue in a vacuum,” said Botswana Minister of the Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, Tshekedi Khama. “There is concerning evidence that elephant poaching is moving south. The criminal networks that facilitate much of this trade are highly organised and fluid, operating over several regions in the continent. Therefore no population should be considered secure. Put simply, a threat to elephants anywhere is a threat to elephants everywhere.”

Many lambaste the EU decision because they are not elephant range states. But their decision seemed to be based on statistics, economics, and politics i.e. appeasing South Africa.

It appears they do not appreciate the impact the southern African nation’s stance can have on the rest of Africa’s elephants. Southern African elephants might be thriving, but the rest of Africas elephants are suffering. While southern African conservation initiatives might be better funded (partly from hunting and trade in ivory) and therefore better able to protect their herds, most of Africa’s range states are not so well equipped, organised or motivated.

Poaching will continue and likely escalate in these regions because their elephants are easier targets than southern Africa’s, and, as the targets dwindle, so the poaching will undoubtably move south. The elephants certainly are.

“Botswana has a lot of elephants because they’re persecuted in the countries around them,” says leader of the Great Elephant Census Mike Chase who suspects that nearly half of Botswana’s elephants are essentially refugees in an ecosystem that cannot fully support them. “South eastern Angola and south western Zambia have the highest rate of poaching on the continent right now.” With 8 elephants per square kilometer, Botswana’s ecosystem cannot sustain this number.

“Elephants have sought their last sanctuary in the Kalahari desert. We’ve had many die from Anthrax; we’re in the middle of a long term drought, the lowest rainfall we’ve had in nearly 60 years.There’s a higher mortality now because of their high numbers. We need to release this compression but we can’t until the poaching crisis has subsided and they have the freedom to go back into Zambia and Angola.” Chase adds that south east Angola can support at least 50 000 elephants.

He is understandably despondent about the CITES decision but welcomes the steps that have been taken in regards to domestic trade and hopes the next CITES convention in 2019 will take firmer steps towards protecting elephants. Hoping to repeat the GEC in three years, Chase says, “The GEC provides us with the baseline and the reference point to gauge the future success or failure of elephant conservation.”

The data provided by the census is valuable, and judging by the EU and South Africa’s statements about relying on sound statistics, a follow up census might convince them to offer all of Africa’s elephants the highest protection possible.

However, there is concern that economic and political factors will remain the most influential factors at CITES, not conservation. CITES is after all a trade convention. It might fulfill its mandate by adhering to criteria based on local national statistics, but elephant poaching is a continent wide issue.

The GEC’s is the first set of data to make continental elephant statistics clear. Apply CITES criteria to the entire continent and (i) the size of the wild population is small, (ii) the area of distribution is restricted and (iii) there is an observed, inferred, or projected marked decline in the population size in the wild.

When it comes to elephant conservation African range states need to take a holistic view. Working as individual states or in small alliances is small thinking. It puts politics at the forefront and drives wedges between nations to the detriment of Africa’s wildlife. Like the EU, by working together they might appreciate their dependence on one another and find consensus on a way forward. If they don’t the prospect for elephants in all Africa’s range states is bleak.

Read origina article: https://www.safarious.com/en/posts/1626 ... imperative


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Preparations, Progress and results - CITES COP17

Post by Lisbeth »

Ivory: When is a ban not a ban?

Image

2016-10-26 14:30 - Andreas Wilson-Späth

The failure to effectively shut down domestic ivory markets at the recent COP17 in Johannesburg leaves the ban on international ivory trade as little more than an ineffective facade and greatly threatens the survival of Africa’s imperiled elephant populations.

Proposals for change

Trading ivory on the international market has been illegal since 1989, but the existence of domestic markets has continued to stimulate demand and driven poaching levels in Africa to catastrophic heights by providing easy ways to launder contraband ivory into legal markets.

Simply put, the international ban is futile as long as ivory can be lawfully traded within countries.

The 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP17) was seen by many as an opportunity to resolve this dilemma by instituting a complete ban on all domestic trading in ivory and by ‘up-listing’ all of Africa’s elephants to CITES’ Appendix I which offers maximum protection to endangered species (elephants in Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and South Africa are currently listed in Appendix II). An alliance of countries known as the African Elephant Coalition introduced proposals that, if accepted, would have made this a reality.

Africa’s elephants betrayed

Instead of agreeing to the outright closure all existing domestic ivory markets, the conference adopted a much watered down compromise that merely encourages countries to close those domestic markets that are considered to contribute to poaching or illegal trade, thus creating a gaping loophole which allows some domestic markets to remain in operation.

After voting in opposition to a domestic trade ban, Japan issued a statement claiming that the resolution adopted by the conference would not apply to it since there was no poached ivory in its market.

While efforts by Namibia and Zimbabwe to allow future international sales of stockpiled ivory were soundly defeated at CoP17, the proposal to include all of Africa’s elephants in Appendix I was rejected.

During the conference, Botswana, home to Africa’s largest elephant population, had made a surprise appeal in support of up-listing the species and banning all trade.

Tshekedi Khama, the country’s Minister of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism announced that “we support a total, unambiguous and permanent ban on the ivory trade”. He added that “a threat to elephants anywhere is a threat to elephants everywhere. There is no time to waste. Botswana unequivocally supports the proposal to list African elephants under Appendix I”. Khama acknowledged that “there is a clear and growing global consensus that the ivory trade needs to be stopped if elephants are to be conserved effectively”.

In stark contrast, Edna Molewa, South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, once again expressed her government’s conception of wildlife conservation as a matter of ‘sustainable utilisation’ in which animals must ‘pay for themselves’ in order to survive. She suggested that “selling ivory is a conservation tool” that “earns revenue which can be plowed back into conservation”, an assertion that critics have repeatedly refuted.

Japan: how domestic markets turn the international trade ban into a sham

Legal domestic ivory markets fundamentally undermine the international trade ban and contribute to the mass slaughter of African elephants. This is clearly illustrated by a closer look at one of the largest of these markets: Japan.

Since 1970, the country has imported the ivory of over 250,000 African elephants and has remained a major destination for poached and smuggled ivory even following the 1989 international trade ban, while also receiving CITES-sanctioned ivory from Southern Africa in ‘one-off’ sales in 1999 and 2008.

A shocking new report by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) reveals how the Japanese system is being abused to launder contraband ivory from poached elephants into legal domestic markets. These findings contradict assertions made by Japan’s environment minister at CoP17, claiming that there was no poached ivory in his country’s internal market.

According to the authors of the report, “Japan’s ivory control system is plagued by loopholes and undercut by weak legislation to such an extent that no meaningful control exists at even the most basic level”. When undercover investigators approached Japanese ivory traders, 30 out of 37 “offered to engage in some form of illegal activity to buy, sell, or fraudulently register a tusk that did not qualify for registration”. In this way, “thousands of tusks of dubious legality have been registered in Japan and thus de facto legalized”.

The country has consistently failed to comply with CITES regulations. Its system for verifying and registering ivory is deeply flawed and unable to prevent illegal ivory from being laundered into the domestic market. Large and growing quantities of unregistered and illegal ivory are for sale in an unregulated manner on the internet in Japan.

According to EIA president Allan Thornton, "it is time for Japan to join global efforts to protect elephants and to permanently ban its domestic ivory trade".

Ivory is also being unlawfully exported from Japan to China and Thailand. The report identifies Japanese companies that admitted “to conducting daily ivory sales to Chinese buyers”.

This is consistent with revelations by veteran investigative journalist and filmmaker Karl Ammann, who has documented very lax controls at Chinese border crossings with regards to contraband wildlife products, the laundering of elephant ivory into the Chinese domestic market disguised as ‘mammoth ivory’, and the growth of ivory trading stores catering to Chinese tourists in neighbouring countries including Thailand, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.

Similar to Japan’s domestic ivory market, Ammann has found “a culture of window-dressing, corruption and lip service – from the street dealers, to the manufacturers, to the wholesalers, to the policy makers” in China and its neighbours. This is despite China’s support for a ban on all domestic ivory trading at CoP17.

By providing loopholes that allow these domestic ivory markets to continue to exist and operate in violation of its own regulations, CITES may have condemned tens of thousands more of Africa’s elephants to death.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Preparations and Progress - CITES COP17

Post by Lisbeth »

In stark contrast, Edna Molewa, South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, once again expressed her government’s conception of wildlife conservation as a matter of ‘sustainable utilisation’ in which animals must ‘pay for themselves’ in order to survive. She suggested that “selling ivory is a conservation tool” that “earns revenue which can be plowed back into conservation”, an assertion that critics have repeatedly refuted.
0*\ 0- 0- And in order to pay for themselves, they must be killed 0=


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75833
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Preparations and Progress - CITES COP17

Post by Richprins »

Lisbeth wrote:
In stark contrast, Edna Molewa, South Africa’s Minister of Environmental Affairs, once again expressed her government’s conception of wildlife conservation as a matter of ‘sustainable utilisation’ in which animals must ‘pay for themselves’ in order to survive. She suggested that “selling ivory is a conservation tool” that “earns revenue which can be plowed back into conservation”, an assertion that critics have repeatedly refuted.
0*\ 0- 0- And in order to pay for themselves, they must be killed 0=
They aren't killed, lis! There are growing stockpiles of ivory taken from naturally dead ellies...in fact they have always taken it into storage to prevent it from being taken by poachers.

Huge stocks, and I agree with Edna in this sense. Why should we be punished, and as with rhino horn, the stockpiles slowly disappear anyway. Flood the market...we are talking thousands of tons, and prices will plummet.

A massive spinoff from ellie culling too... :yes:

Cites seems to blithely disregard any different opinions regarding issues, sort of like the liberalbullies... O**


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Preparations and Progress - CITES COP17

Post by Lisbeth »

I am still not sure one way or the other :-?


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Challenges of analyzing the global trade in CITES-listed wildlife

Post by Lisbeth »

Image

BY JANINE E. ROBINSON, PABLO SINOVAS - 2018 - CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

International wildlife trade can represent a major threat to biodiversity conservation. Annually, billions
of plants, animals and their products are traded across international borders, with legal trade alone
estimated to be worth over 320 billion USD per annum (TRAFFIC 2009). CITES, the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, regulates and monitors trade in
~35,000 species. CITES has 183 signatory countries (‘Parties’), all of which must provide annual
reports detailing their international trade in CITES-listed species, culminating in more than 18 million
trade records. This wealth of data, reported from 1975 to-date, is maintained in a central, freelyaccessible
database, the ‘CITES Trade Database’ (trade.cites.org), managed by the UN Environment
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) on behalf of the CITES Secretariat. In recent
years, many scientists have utilized this database to try to understand the wildlife trade, and its
implications for conservation of threatened species, resulting in at least 114 peer-reviewed publications (Supporting Information). However, given the vast and international nature of the dataset,
properly interpreting the data is highly complex, and incorrect interpretation can lead to erroneous
conclusions. This is of conservation relevance, particularly as such studies may form the basis for
management decisions and recommendations. The ‘Guide to Using the CITES Trade Database’
(UNEP-WCMC 2013) provides technical instruction on utilizing the database. However, here we
discuss major challenges of analyzing and interpreting CITES trade data, highlight common areas of
confusion arising in the scientific literature, and provide guidance on how these can be avoided.

General analyses of CITES trade data

Various studies have sought to understand trade dynamics of CITES-listed species (e.g. Carpenter et
al. 2014; Li & Jiang 2014). However, numerous factors affect trade dynamics, including (amongst
others); countries joining CITES at different times (contributing data from different periods),
new/amended CITES listings, taxonomic changes and national and international regulatory
interventions (e.g. quotas, suspensions). Therefore taking the trade data at face value can sometimes
be misleading. Figure 1 (a) illustrates a sharp increase in reptiles imported to the EU since 2006.
However, closer interpretation reveals that this is caused by the inclusion on Appendix III of a
previously unlisted genus, whose trade prior to this time was simply not reported because it was not
CITES-listed.

Whilst some factors affecting trade can be cross-checked utilizing resources including the CITES
website and the Species+ database (www.speciesplus.net), it can often be complex, or there is simply
insufficient information, to reliably identify specific drivers of trends. This emphasises the need for
careful interpretation of the CITES data. Below we highlight four key areas we feel require further
consideration in future studies.

1. Importer vs exporter reported figures

Countries provide data for both their imports and exports, resulting in two data sources for any data
query; 1) that reported by importing countries, and 2) that reported by exporting countries. For several
reasons, these do not always match. Whilst data in annual reports should be based on trade that
actually took place (Annex to CITES Notification 2017/007), sometimes countries report data based on permits issued. As the quantities actually traded may be lower than those permitted, this can result
in lower importer-reported trade levels. On this basis, some studies have analyzed data reported
predominantly by importing countries (e.g. Rhyne et al. 2012). However, countries are not required
under CITES to issue import permits for Appendix II species (although several do as part of stricter
domestic measures), and therefore imports of Appendix II species will not always be reported. Figure
1(b) illustrates how under-reporting of imports can lead to substantially higher trade levels reported by
exporters than by importers. Where it is important to understand quantities that export countries have
authorized, or when the completeness and accuracy of reporting is considered higher by exporters, it
may be more appropriate to use exporter-reported data.

Other reasons for inconsistencies in import and export figures include different use of trade ‘terms’
such as ‘source’, ‘purpose’, ‘unit’ etc. (see Table 1 and UNEP-WCMC 2013), whereby different Parties
apply the ‘terms’ differently. Additionally, export permits issued at the end of the year may not be used
(and not reported) by importing countries until the following year, leading to discrepancies between
years. Finally, data reported by both importers and exporters may be subject to reporting errors, and
therefore neither indicates actual minimum or maximum numbers in trade as indicated in Fialho et al.
2016 and Foster et al. 2014. Where possible, both should be considered, as the existence of
discrepancies is in itself information that may reveal aspects of interest.

2. ‘Comparative’ vs ‘Gross’/‘Net’ trade reports

Trade data can be downloaded as ‘comparative’ or ‘gross/net’ trade reports, the choice of which
requires careful consideration. In general, ‘comparative’ reports provide the most comprehensive
picture of the trade, as they present imports, exports, re-exports, and all trade ‘terms’, as reported by
both importing and exporting countries, allowing side-by-side comparison.

‘Gross’ and ‘net’ reports provide more simplified data summaries, excluding information on source,
purpose and country of origin, but can overestimate trade. Gross reports combine both exports and
re-exports of traded specimens, thereby often double counting individuals. Re-exports can be
identified by their country of origin, which will differ from the country of export. In the database, direct
trade can be isolated by selecting data with no origin country listed indicating that the exporting
country is its origin. Rivalan et al. (2007) use gross reports to assess the effect of trade bans, but as this includes re-exports and details are not provided regarding the source of specimens (e.g. wild or
captive-bred), the analysis may not provide an accurate picture of the trade or of shifts in reported
sources that may occur following trade bans. Instead, for research questions aiming to consider actual
numbers in trade, ‘net’ reports account for double counting by reporting the difference between gross
exports and gross imports. However, where discrepancies exist between importers and exporters,
gross and net reports both take the larger value, and therefore net reports can also inflate trade
figures, albeit by a lesser amount.

Regardless of the report type, a misconception is that each row in the data represents an individual
shipment/trade transaction (e.g. as in D’Cruze & Macdonald 2015), which is not the case. All data for
the year, concerning the same taxa, exporter, importer and trade terms are aggregated into one row
(see UNEP-WCMC 2013).

3. Terms and units

CITES regulates trade in whole animals and plants as well as their parts and derivatives. The different
commodities in trade are defined by standardised ‘terms’ (Table 1), which can in turn be reported in
different ‘units’ (e.g. number of specimens, kilograms), and many of these terms and units cannot be
meaningfully summed in one analysis. For example, Jiang et al. (2013) summarise China’s trade in
Ptyas mucosus as ‘number of pieces/specimens’, but the figures presented combine ‘terms’ such as
live animals with parts such as leather products. Additionally, Mieres & Fitzgerald (2006) provide
figures of Tupinambis trade that result from the addition of number of skins with kg and cm of skins.
Units should not be combined unless they can be directly converted (e.g. grams to kilograms) or
conversion rates are available (e.g. kilograms to cubic meters based on known density) (e.g. ArroyoQuiroz
et al. 2007).

4. Purpose codes

Confusion has arisen in the literature over the use of purpose codes, which can be particularly
challenging. For example, trade for ‘personal’ purposes is often used for non-commercial movement
of pets (e.g. holidays, emigration), but this excludes large numbers traded for the pet trade, which are
traded as ‘commercial’. Indeed, Harrington (2015) demonstrates that ten times the number of carnivores and primates are traded as ‘commercial’ than ‘personal’, and Robinson et al. (2015) report
that 99.2% of Appendix II live reptiles are traded as ‘commercial’. Consequently, in seeking to
understand global trade in exotic pets, the data in Bush et al. (2014) are only representative of a tiny
fraction of the trade because only transactions traded as ‘personal’ were used. In addition, CITES
‘purpose’ categories are used for multiple types of trade and can overlap. So, whilst ‘commercial’
encompasses specimens traded for the commercial pet trade, specimens supplying research facilities
or zoos, for example, may also be traded as ‘commercial’ by some countries, even though alternative
codes can also be used (e.g. ‘scientific’ and ‘zoo’, respectively).

The use of ‘purpose’ ‘hunting trophy’, often used in combination with a variety of ‘terms’ (e.g. body,
skin, skull), can also result in confusion because a specific ‘trophy’ ‘term’ also exists, which is
sometimes used in combination with ‘purposes’ different from ‘hunting trophy’. Consequently, an
analysis that only uses the ‘term’ ‘trophy’ but discounts other ‘terms’ with ‘purpose’ ‘hunting trophy’
(e.g. Di Minin et al. 2016) may underestimate trade. In addition, different parts of an animal (e.g. skin,
skull, feet and horns) are sometimes reported as separate trophy items, which if incorrectly interpreted
can lead to overestimates of the number of animals.

Conclusion

The CITES Trade Database provides a powerful tool for understanding the wildlife trade for listed
species, but it must be carefully analyzed and interpreted. Additionally, as with all data sources, there
are limitations relating to the use of CITES trade data, and therefore we recommend users refer to the
database guidelines and wider literature for further discussion (e.g Thomas et al. 2006; Herrel & van
der Meijden, 2014; Lopes et al. 2017). Notwithstanding, the database provides an unparalleled tool for
monitoring trade in wildlife and wildlife products across borders, and with more than one million
records added annually in recent years, it represents an invaluable resource with enormous potential
for understanding global wildlife trade.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Cites – the trade system that doesn’t know that it doesn’t know

Post by Lisbeth »

By Lynn Johnson• 17 January 2019

Cites, the United Nations organisation which regulates wildlife trade, meets in Sri Lanka in May for its 18th session. First on its agenda should be its chronic inability to conserve the world’s natural resources. It’s a discussion the organisation has been avoiding for years. Here’s why its approach is failing.

The obvious way to protect the natural world is through cautionary, conservation-based principles and conventions. Instead, Cites attempts to do this on the basis of trade.

It hasn’t worked for the past 40 years of the organisation’s existence, but signatory countries still believe trade is the way and refuse to be persuaded otherwise. Challenging their premise is a waste of time.

Conservation NGOs which should be highlighting Cites’ failures aren’t doing so. When asked why not, their response is generally “We know the system isn’t great, but it is all we have”.

When pushed, some admit they don’t want to upset the Cites secretariat or the parties as they don’t want to be uninvited to the working group meetings in Geneva or to the Conference of Parties, which would rob them of the status of “having a seat at the table”. While signatories (governments) have an automatic invitation to Cites meetings and working groups, conservation NGOs are invited by the “grace and favour” of the formal stakeholders.

Conservation NGOs are also concerned that if the Cites trade permit system is seen as flawed by the general public, it would reflect very badly on them for having allowed this to go on for decades.

So if we’re stuck with regulating trade as the basis of conservation for the foreseeable future, then at least the governments, agencies and organisations supporting it must demonstrate that the system administering and monitoring this trade is fit for purpose for the species it’s created to protect.

This is not happening and may never have happened. People and businesses that want to maintain trade in wildlife consistently use the statement that they comply with all Cites trade permit rules. How do we know?

Image

For the Cites system to prevent illegal trade, its monitoring system needs to be transparent and provide the ability to track individual items from origin to destination, without loopholes, gaps or opportunities to launder illegal items into the legal market. However, there’s a growing body of evidence that the Cites trade permit system is not managing this and, in many instances, is held in contempt by representatives of agencies who use it.

In reality, the Cites trade and permit system is completely useless in reconciling even the most basic import and export data. Items are not identifiable, not tracked and even quantities recorded are ambiguous (such as “10 units” of ivory, which is meaningless).

Image

Many countries do not require import permits, making reconciliation and auditing impossible. Permits are mostly paper-based and generally not reconciled with customs documents such as lading bills or air waybills.

Following research on hippo teeth trade between Africa and Hong Kong, Alexandra Andersson commented: “A quick scan of the records demonstrates that vast and consistent data discrepancies are clear in many cases, and that the true volume of many traded endangered species is simply unknown. This is alarming, considering the reason all of these species are included in Cites is because they are vulnerable to over-exploitation, and extinction.”

The trade is huge. A 2012 British House of Commons report estimated the annual legal wildlife trade to be $320-billion. A 2017 report by the World Customs Union said the annual illegal trade could be as high as $258-billion.

Image

As the conservation organisations have no power and are not prepared to rock the boat, the focus for activists and the concerned public must be to influence the 183 signatories to Cites. This requires using the language of trade. But there’s no point in continuing to push concerns about the impact of the illegal trade because this only ends up with the same-old, same-old: “We don’t have enough information, we need NGOs to do more research.”

What it’s really saying is: “We don’t want to have a difficult conversation about this with the relevant signatory countries, so let’s put the decision off for another three years, pay for more unnecessary research and then hopefully by then we’ll have sufficient information that we can make a consensus decision so it doesn’t feel uncomfortable and no one threatens to pull out of Cites, because we don’t want too many people in the world to realise that Cites is a toothless regulator.”

Image

Given the evidence that the present trade system is not fit for purpose, there needs to be a moratorium on all new trade – for example rhino horn or additional quotas – until the system is decisively fixed and resourced. This needs to be a part of the agenda at Cites CoP 18 in Sri Lanka and beyond.

To summarise:

Cites is presently a convention ostensibly dedicated to wildlife protection that does nothing other than enabling trade on a massive scale with minimal regulation and oversight, resulting in plummeting wildlife populations.

- Traders and traffickers alike are making massive profits of both the legal and illegal trade.

- Given the prevalent “free trade” and “economic growth” ideology, traders have ready access to lobby governments, whereas activists and those opposed to trade lack both access and representation.

- Mainstream conservation NGOs are often neutered by relying on government and corporate donations.

- There is no chance of replacing Cites in the short-medium term so we need to fix it. This can only be done with the help of Cites government signatories as only they can make proposals for consideration at CoP meetings.

- Putting pressure on the mainstream conservation NGOs to take a tougher stance on fixing Cites may not be worth the effort.

The beginnings of a solution came in a letter sent to Cites by the NGOs Nature Needs More and For the Love of Wildlife in September last year. A precautionary approach is suggested, based on the reverse-listing of all species that may be traded without damage to the species or their ecosystems. Nothing not on the list could then be legally traded. This would make trade easier to monitor, under the current system 35,000 species are listed for trade restrictions, which is impossible to monitor.

A levy is also proposed on all trade approved under Cites in order to provide the organisation with sufficient funds to create a transparent, traceable and tamper-proof trade system.

Cites, as the key agency and facilitator of trade in fauna and flora, has had over 40 years to evolve and perfect a system vital to the conservation of wildlife. If Cites and conservation agencies want to continue to be relevant to this issue, they should fix the basics or step aside, so a conservation-focused rather than a trade-focused system can be put in place.

This change won’t come from within Cites or even conservation NGOs. The best source of pressure is an informed, concerned and vocal public. Here is some of the information they will need. DM

Lynn Johnson originates from the UK; with her education and work taking her via several years in Germany to emigrating to Australia in 1996. A scientist by education, she holds a PhD in particle physics, her professional life has been working in the areas of executive coaching, commercial strategy and corporate culture change. As a result of her passion for wildlife conservation, Johnson decided to formalise her commitment by using her experience in nudging and driving behaviour change to create demand reduction campaigns. Johnson founded Nature Needs More Ltd, a registered wildlife conservation charity in Australia.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67235
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

CoP18 - August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Lisbeth »

What CITES will debate at CoP18 in May for these African species?

Posted on 1 April, 2019 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Conservation, News, Research, Wildlife

Image

In preparation for the 18th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties taking place in May in Sri Lanka (CoP18), an analysis by IUCN and TRAFFIC for each of the proposed amendments to the CITES Appendices has been made available.

The CITES CoP meetings occur roughly every three years and changes to trade rules, through amendments to the Convention’s Appendices, can have profound conservation implications for affected species.

The listing of a species in Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade, and effectively prevents all commercial international trade.

Species listed in Appendix II are not necessarily threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilisation incompatible with their survival. They can be traded under special permit conditions.

Appendix III is for species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the co-operation of other Parties in the control of trade.

Below is the list of proposals that affect species occurring in Africa and along the continent’s coastal waters.

MAMMALS


Image
Wild populations of giraffe have declined by up to 40% in the last 30 years due to habitat loss and poaching

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)

• Countries: Central African Republic, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Niger, and Senegal

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

The proposal seeks to place all seven species and subspecies of giraffes (currently unprotected) under the protection of Appendix II. Wild populations of giraffes have declined by up to 40% in the last 30 years due to habitat loss, poaching, and use in trade. While exploitation for trade may not be the primary cause of decline in wild giraffe populations, it nevertheless has an additive effect when combined with the main causes of habitat loss, civil unrest, and poaching for bushmeat.

Listing giraffes under Appendix II will not prohibit trade in the species, but it will require exporting countries to prove that giraffe specimens were legally obtained and that the export is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Additionally, the listing would provide researchers and governments with important data to track the trade in giraffes throughout the world.

If left unprotected and no regulations on trade remains, then the giraffe population will continue to plummet due to over utilisation of their use in the wildlife trade.

Image
Namibia has proposed to transfer its population of white rhino from Appendix I to II, and Eswatini has proposed a measure that would allow international trade in rhino horns for commercial purposes.

Southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)

• Country: Eswatini (Swaziland)

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Remove the existing annotation for the population of Eswatini

Eswatini has proposed the removal of the existing annotation on the Appendix II listing of its white rhino population, which would allow international trade in rhinos and their products – including horn and derivatives.

The proposal seeks to allow Eswatini to sell rhino horn from existing stock to licensed retailers in the Far East, plus up to 20 kg per annum, including harvested horn, to those retailers. There is no trophy hunting of white rhino in Eswatini as the rhinos live in Big Game Parks reserves where sport and trophy hunting is not permitted. In addition, Eswatini does not not believe in burning or otherwise destroying valuable resources including rhino horn.

Proceeds from the sale of horn will be utilised by Eswatini’s rhino parks in order to protect the country’s rhino populations against criminal poaching syndicates, as well as provide remuneration of park employees, fund much-needed additional infrastructure and equipment, and provide for sustainable long-term developments. (For further information read here)

Southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)

• Country: Namibia

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Transfer the population of Namibia from Appendix I to Appendix II

Namibia has proposed to change the CITES status of their white rhino population from Appendix I to Appendix II , which would allow international trade in live animals and in trophy hunting trophies.

The proposal notes the following rationale behind the request to change to Appendix II:

1) Namibia has an increasing population of white rhinos. The population is secure, with a steady growth rate of 6.7% per annum noted between 2002-2018 (including imports from South Africa). There has been no impact to the growth rate with the current low levels of exports of hunting trophies and live animals. As such, the population does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I.

2) The transfer will, according to the proposal, not threaten the survival of the species as there are already the necessary control and enforcement measures in place, which have shown to be relatively successful in curbing illegal killing and illegal trade. Trade in live animals will only take place to appropriate and acceptable destinations, therefore allowing Namibia to verify the destination. With the transfer to Appendix II, Namibia will be able to export live animals and hunting trophies to more countries and will increase revenue through sustainable use, and therefore generate much-needed funding for rhino conservation and protection.

With the rhinos currently under Appendix I, Namibia’s ability to generate revenues for conservation has been severely limited. Transferring the population to Appendix II will create access to a far larger market for the animals. (For further information read here)

Image
The elephant has come under the spotlight by a number of African countries in the latest CITES proposals

African elephant (Loxodonta africana)

• Country: Zambia

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Transfer the population of Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II

Zambia has proposed to transfer the population of African elephants from Appendix I to Appendix II so that it will be allowed to trade in registered, government-owned raw ivory (tusks and pieces) for commercial purposes only to CITES approved trading partners who will not re-export; trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes; and trade in hides and leather goods.

According to TRAFFIC’s assessment, the elephant population in Zambia is not small, does not have a restricted distribution, and appears to have been relatively stable in the last decade. Therefore the population appears not to meet the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I. However, they do say that there is a lack of clarity over the intention of the proposal with regard to trade in ivory. Little detail is given on proposed management to ensure that Article IV requirements would be met or of any appropriate enforcement controls in place.

This would be the third time that Zambia has submitted this proposal, after being rejected at CoP12 in 2002 and at CoP15 in 2010.

African elephant (Loxodonta africana)

• Countries: Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Amend annotation 2 for the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe

Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, whose populations of elephants are already on Appendix II, want to weaken existing restrictions on their ability, and that of South Africa whose elephant population is also on Appendix II, to export registered raw ivory to consumer countries.

This raw ivory will be obtained from government-owned stocks excluding seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin.

The proposal to amend annotation 2 also includes allowing the trade in elephant hides, hair and trade in leather goods for commercial or non-commercial purposes for Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, and for non-commercial purposes for Zimbabwe.

If accepted, the proposal’s main effect would be to allow exports of registered raw ivory, but without the oversight by the Standing Committee and the Conference of the Parties. Parties would need to be satisfied that Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are implementing the requirements of the Convention, particularly Article IV, and that the appropriate enforcement controls and compliance with the requirements of the Convention are in place.

CITES has rejected past proposals by Zimbabwe and Namibia to allow ivory trade with looser controls.

African elephant (Loxodonta africana)

• Countries: Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, and Togo

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Transfer the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe from Appendix II to Appendix I

In what could be considered in opposition to the two proposals submitted by Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe in regards to relaxing restrictions on the international trade in raw ivory, this proposal looks for tighter controls in order to offer maximum protection under CITES.

However, TRAFFIC has pointed out that the elephant population of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe is not small, nor does it have a restricted range and it is not undergoing a marked decline. Therefore, the elephant population does not meet the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I.

If the proposal is accepted, then this would make any future ‘one-off’ ivory sales by the Southern Africa nations extremely difficult.

BIRDS

Image
The black-crowned crane CITES proposal seeks to move it from Appendix II to Appendix I listing due to concerns for future populations © Olaf Oliviero Riemer

Black crowned-crane (Balearica pavonina)

• Countries: Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Senegal

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I

Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal are proposing to transfer the black-crowned crane from Appendix II to I, to prohibit international trade in the species. The black-crowned crane has been on Appendix II since 1985, but severe declines in certain populations due to live trappings for local domestication and international trade has raised the concerns for future populations.

There is an estimated population of 43,000–70,000 individuals. In 2010, the population was estimated to have declined by 30–49% over three generations (45 years).

Black-crowned cranes are legally protected in Africa but some countries lack resources to control illegal hunters.

REPTILES

Image
Grandidier’s Madagascar ground gecko is widely sought after in the international pet trade © Wikcommons/Spydercogecko

Grandidier’s Madagascar ground gecko (Paroedura androyensis)

• Countries: European Union and Madagascar

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

Grandidier’s Madagascar ground gecko is one of 21 species of Malagasy ground geckos in the genus Paroedura, and is endemic to southern Madagascar. This species is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ and deforestation has caused fragmentation of its habitat. It is widely sought after in the international pet trade, with Madagascar reporting exports of more than 6,000 individuals (wild) between 2013 and 2017. The gecko is protected as a category III species under Madagascar Law 2006-400, which allows for hunting and capture with a license during the hunting season and subsequent export.

The proposal seeks to list the gecko under Appendix II in order to have more control over its trade.

There is no quantitative information on its population size, so it is not possible to determine how the international trade is affecting the current population. TRAFFIC states that with the lack of information available, it cannot say if the species meets the requirements of Appendix II criteria.

Image
The pancake tortoise is in high demand in the international pet trade mainly due to its unique unusually thin, flat, and flexible shell © Dave Pape

Pancake tortoise (Malacochersus tornieri)

• Countries: Kenya and United States of America

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I

Found in the rocky outcrops in Kenya, Tanzania and northern Zambia, the pancake tortoise comes in high demand in the international pet trade – the largest markets being Asia and the USA. The population size in 2001/2002 was estimated at between 4,000–32,000. According to TRAFFIC, recent assessment accepted for publication in the March 2019 Red List update categorises the species as ‘Critically Endangered’ due to observed, estimated and projected population reductions of about 80% over three generations (45 years in total) that will be reached in the next 15 years.

The decline in population is mainly due to the overexploitation in the international pet trade, but also habitation degradation and loss from farming.

MARINE

Image
The meat and fins of Mako sharks are highly valued on both national and international markets © Mark Conlin

Mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus, Isurus paucus)

• Countries: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Egypt, European Union, Gabon, Gambia, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Samoa, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Togo

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

Both species of Mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus and I. paucus) are widely distributed, occurring in tropical ocean waters. Their primary threat is directed and incidental catch in multi-specific fisheries. Their meat and fins are highly valued on both national and international markets. It is hard to identify between the species in the form in which they are traded (ie, meat), so while it is believed that the majority of meat comes from the Isurus oxyrinchus, both species are listed under the CITES proposal.

Research suggests that there is a concern for the decrease in population, based off historical and recent population data. By including the sharks under Appendix II, their regulation of trade will ensure that the harvest of specimens from the wild is not reducing the wild population to a level at which its survival might be threatened by continued harvesting.

Image
Guitarfish species are shark-like batoid species and are considered ‘Critically Endangered’ by the IUCN © Anne Hoggett

Guitarfish (Glaucostegus spp.)

• Countries: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, European Union, Gabon, Gambia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Monaco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, and Ukraine

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

The guitarfish species are shark-like batoid species occurring in the coastal waters of the Mediterranean and Black Sea, Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Global population sizes are unknown, but all six species in the family have recently been assessed by IUCN as ‘Critically Endangered’ (to be published July 2019) with estimated declines of greater than 80% over the last three generations having occurred mainly due to over-harvesting.

Their primary threat is unmanaged and unregulated fishing practices. Their meat is mainly utilised locally, however fins from the species have been observed in international trade.

Placing the species under Appendix II will mean a regulation of trade that will ensure that harvest from the wild is not reducing population levels to a point where the species is under threat from continued harvesting.

Image
Their population size is unknown, but eight out of the ten species of wedgefish were recently been assessed by the IUCN as ‘Critically Endangered’ © Brian Gratwicke

Wedgefish (Rhinidae spp.)

• Countries: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, European Union, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, India, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, and Ukraine

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

The wedgefish species inhabit shallow, inshore continental waters of the east Atlantic, Indian and western Pacific Oceans, often occurring in muddy enclosed bays, in estuaries and on coral reefs. Like the guitarfish species, the wedgefish species are facing similar threats to their population in the form of unsustainable and unregulated fishing throughout their range. Their meat is mainly utilised locally, however fins from the species have been observed in international trade.

Their population size is unknown, but eight out of the ten species were recently assessed by the IUCN as ‘Critically Endangered’ (declines of greater than 80% over the last three generations), with one additional species assessed as ‘Critically Endangered’ (Possibly Extinct) and one as ‘Near Threatened’ (with declines of 20–30% over the last three generations).

Placing the species under Appendix II will mean a regulation of trade that will ensure that harvest from the wild is not reducing population levels to a point where the species is under threat from continued harvesting.

Image
Holothuria whitmaei, one of the three species of sea cucumber that are commonly referred to as teatfish due to their lateral protrusions © François Michonneau

Sea cucumbers (Holothuria (Microthele) fuscogilva, Holothuria (Microthele) nobilis, Holothuria (Microthele) whitmaei)

• Countries: European Union, Kenya, Senegal, Seychelles, and United States of America

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

In general, sea cucumbers (of which there are 1,743 species) are targeted by fisheries for international trade, mainly to the Asian markets. Their traded form is known as beche-de-mer, a delicacy prepared from the dried body wall thought to have supposed medicinal properties. The three species listed in the proposal are the Holothuria fuscogilva, H. nobilis and H. whitmaei – commonly referred to as teatfish due to their lateral protrusions. The presence of teats differentiate this group from other sea cucumbers, even in dried form.

Sea cucumber fisheries are not regulated in several countries, although some have employed various measures. Population declines in these three species have been observed from studies in limited areas of their ranges, however fishing pressure is likely over much of their range. According to TRAFFIC, the IUCN Red List assessments have estimated the overall declines as: H. fuscogilva 30–50% since the 1960s, H. nobilis 60–70% in at least 80% of its range, and H. whitmaei 60–90% in the majority of its range.

Regulation of trade is required to ensure that harvest from the wild is not reducing population to a level where survival might be threatened by continued harvest or other influences, hence the proposal to place the species in Appendix II.

FLORA

Image
The Mulanje cedar is now considered commercially extinct and there are no mature trees remaining in their natural habitat © Craig Hilton-Taylor/IUCN

Mulanje cedar (Widdringtonia whytei)

• Country: Malawi

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

Malawi has proposed that its national tree, the Mulanje cedar, be listed under Appendix II. The species faces numerous threats, the most serious of which are changing fire regimes, fuelwood collection, illegal logging, invasive tree species and conifer aphids. The IUCN has classified it as ‘Critically Endangered’ on the basis that these threats will cause a decline of more than 80% by 2030.

According to TRAFFIC, this species is considered commercially extinct and there are no mature trees remaining in their natural habitat – the last of them felled by 2018. Seedlings have been planted, but will not mature for many years, which means that trade will not be likely in the near future and therefore listing it under Appendix II will unlikely have any significant conservation impact.

Image
Afromosia is a highly valued timber native to Central and West Africa © Nature and Development Foundation

Afromosia (Pericopsis elata)

• Countries: Côte d’Ivoire and European Union

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Amend annotation #5 for Pericopsis elata

Afromosia is a highly valued timber native to Central and West Africa. It is currently listed under Appendix II with the annotation #5 which restricts the listing to “logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets”. However, loop holes have been discovered where traders from range States have been exporting sawn wood with minor, superficial transformations in order to circumvent CITES controls.

The proposal now wants the annotation to be changed so that it includes transformed wood (and plywood), as follows:

“Logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets, plywood, and transformed wood.”

According to TRAFFIC, the intention to include transformed wood (and plywood) to close the observed loophole seems an appropriate amendment and has been supported by the Standing Committee Working Group on Annotations.

Image
The African padauk is a native African species that is currently listed as ‘Least Concern’ under the IUCN © Mpingo Conservation & Development Initiative

African padauk (Pterocarpus tinctorius)

• Country: Malawi

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Include in Appendix II

The African padauk is a native African species that is currently listed as ‘Least Concern’ under the IUCN. Its timber is used in the international trade and it has been evidence of an increase in export of timber from some range States. The species population is thought to be declining, though the species is widespread and locally common.

Placing the species under Appendix II would help in the trade and harvest regulations. The current level of harvest for timber is likely to be unsustainable and TRAFFIC believes that this almost certainly exceeds the rate at which harvestable-sized trees are being replenished in the population.

Image
The bitter aloe (Aloe ferox) is a medicinal plant native to South Africa and Lesotho © Garden Finance

Bitter aloe (Aloe ferox)

• Country: South Africa

• Recommended proposal in CITES appendices: Amend annotation #4 for Aloe ferox

The bitter aloe is a medicinal plant native to South Africa and Lesotho. It has been listed under Appendix II since 1975. The proposal seeks to amend part f) of annotation #4, so that it includes Aloe ferox as part of the finished product. The current annotation says the following:

All parts and derivatives, except:
a) seeds (including seedpods of Orchidaceae), spores and pollen (including pollinia). The exemption does not apply to seeds from Cactaceae species exported from Mexico, and to seeds from Beccariophoenix madagascariensis and Dypsis decaryi exported from Madagascar;
b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers;
c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants;
d) fruits, and parts and derivatives thereof, of naturalized or artificially propagated plants of the genus Vanilla (Orchidaceae) and of the family Cactaceae;
e) stems, flowers, and parts and derivatives thereof, of naturalized or artificially propagated plants of the genera Opuntia subgenus Opuntia and Selenicereus (Cactaceae); and
f) finished products of Euphorbia antisyphilitica packaged and ready for retail trade.

The proposed amendment would say the following:

f) finished products of Aloe ferox and Euphorbia antisyphilitica packaged and ready for retail trade.

This term, as used in the CITES Appendices, refers to product, shipped singly or in bulk, requiring no further processing, packaged, labelled for final use or the retail trade in a state fit for being sold to or used by the general public.

According to TRAFFIC, “South Africa exports large quantities of wild sourced Aloe ferox extract and derivatives, the latter having increased proportionately in recent years apparently due to increased processing of finished products in South Africa. South Africa has said that most of the derivatives they have reported are finished products packaged and ready for retail trade and propose that they be excluded from CITES controls by the proposed amendment to the annotation.”


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May postponed to August 2019

Post by Klipspringer »

Proposals for the forthcoming World Wildlife Conference - CITES CoP18 to be held in Geneva, Switzerland from 17 to 28 August 2019


White Rhino

The white rhinoceros has been heavily poached for its horn for many years. Although the population of southern white rhinos in Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland) is listed on Appendix II, an annotation currently prevents international trade in rhino horn. Eswatini proposes removing this annotation so that it can sell an existing stock of 330 kg of rhino horn and then 20 kg per year from non-lethal harvesting. Namibia proposes transferring its population of Ceratotherium simum simum from Appendix I to II with an annotation solely for the sale of live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations and for hunting trophies, with all other specimens to remain on Appendix I.



https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... rop-08.pdf
Proposal
To remove the existing annotation on the Appendix II listing of Eswatini’s southern white rhino population,
adopted at the 13th Conference of Parties in 2004, so as to enable Eswatini to realise full Appendix II status
for its white rhinos as provided for in Article IV of the Treaty, thereby permitting the regulated legal trade in
Eswatini’s white rhinos, their products including horn and derivatives.

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... rop-09.pdf
Proposal
Transfer of the population of Ceratotherium simum simum of Namibia from Appendix I to Appendix II with the following annotation:
For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in:
a) live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; and
b) hunting trophies.
All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.


African elephant

The African elephant was moved from CITES Appendix II to CITES Appendix I in 1989 after decades of ivory poaching had greatly reduced many populations. In 1997 and 2000, recognizing that some southern African elephant populations were healthy and well managed, CITES agreed to downlist the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to Appendix II. In 1999 and again in 2008, sales of registered stocks of government-owned ivory from these countries were authorized to China and Japan.

Now, Zambia proposes to downlist its elephant population from Appendix I to Appendix II to permit sales of registered ivory stocks to CITES-approved buyers as well as some specified non-ivory trade.
Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe would like to enable trade in registered ivory stocks to Secretariat-verified partners as well as some specified non-ivory trade. They propose to do this by amending an annotation that, although their elephant populations are listed in Appendix II, currently disallows trade.

A group of 10 countries takes a very different tack by proposing that the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe be moved from Appendix II to Appendix I. These countries are Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Togo.


https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... rop-10.pdf
Proposal
Zambia proposes that the population of African elephant (Loxodonta africana) of Zambia be downlisted from Appendix I to Appendix II subject to
1. Trade in registered raw ivory (tusks and pieces) for commercial purposes only to CITES approved trading partners who will not re-export.
2. Trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes;
3. Trade in hides and leather goods.
4. All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly


https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... rop-11.pdf
Proposal
Amendment to Annotation 2 pertaining to the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe

For the exclusive purpose of allowing:
a) trade in hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes
b) trade in live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations, as defined in Resolution Conf.11.20 (Rev. CoP17), for Botswana and Zimbabwe and for in situ conservation programmes for Namibia and South Africa;
c) trade in hides;
d) trade in hair;
e) trade in leather goods for commercial or non-commercial purposes for Botswana, Namibia and South Africa and for non-commercial purposes for Zimbabwe;
f) trade in individually marked and certified ekipas incorporated in finished jewellery for noncommercial purposes for Namibia and ivory carvings for non-commercial purposes for Zimbabwe;
g) trade in registered raw ivory (for Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, whole tusks and pieces) subject to the following:
i) only registered government-owned stocks, originating in the State (excluding seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin);
ii) only to trading partners that have been verified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with all requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP17) concerning domestic manufacturing and trade;
iii) not before the Secretariat has verified the prospective importing countries and the registered government-owned stocks;
vi) the proceeds of the trade are used exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programmes within or adjacent to the elephant range.

On a proposal from the Secretariat, the Standing Committee can decide to cause this trade to cease partially or completely in the event of non-compliance by exporting or importing countries, or in the case of proven detrimental impacts of the trade on other elephant populations.
All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in
them shall be regulated accordingly

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... rop-12.pdf
Proposal
The inclusion of all populations of Loxodonta africana (African elephant) in Appendix I through the transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I of the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
This amendment is justified according to the following criteria under Annex 1 of Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP16), Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II:
"C. A marked decline in population size in the wild1, which has been either...
i) observed as ongoing or as having occurred in the past (but with a potential to resume); or
ii) inferred or projected on the basis of ...the following:
levels or patterns of exploitation;"
It is further justified according to the opening paragraph of Annex 3 of Resolution Conf. 9.24, Special cases:
"Listing of a species in more than one Appendix should be avoided in general in view of the enforcement problems it creates"
and according to the opening paragraph of Annex 4 of Resolution Conf. 9.24, Precautionary measures:
"When considering proposals to amend Appendix I or II, the Parties shall, by virtue of the precautionary approach and in case of uncertainty either as regards the status of a species or the impact of trade on the conservation of a species act in the best interest of the conservation of the species concerned and adopt measures that are proportionate to the anticipated risks to the species."


Post Reply

Return to “Endangered Species”