Cites: Bid to curb sale of ivory and rhino horn voted down
Damian Carrington in Bangkok
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 7 March 2013 16.57 GMT
Efforts to curb the sale of ivory and rhino horns were voted down on Thursday at an international wildlife summit in Bangkok.
At the 178-nation Convention in Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) meeting, Burkina Faso and Kenya cited the "merciless slaughter of elephants" in their attempt to extend to a wider group of nations a pledge from some countries not to sell ivory stockpiles before 2016. But the proposal was seen as legally flawed by many delegates and failed to get support.
But Tom Milliken, head of the elephant and rhino team at wildlife trade monitoring network Traffic, , said he was more optimistic than ever that tough action would still be taken. "This time people are listening because everything is pointing in the same direction: poaching is up to a record high, as is illegal ivory trading and elephants seem to be down," he said. About 25,000 elephants were killed by poachers in 2012.
At the Cites talks, 19 nations face bans on all wildlife trade unless they crack down on the poaching, smuggling or sale of illegal ivory. The summit is also considering compulsory forensic testing of seized tusks, so the criminal chain can be traced and compulsory reporting of stockpiles of ivory, to prevent corruption or thefts.
Separately, Kenya attempted to prevent the export of trophy-hunted rhino horns from South Africa. Vietnamese and east European gangs use the practice as a cover to feed the illegal Vietnamese market with the 1,000 horns a year it is demanding. But Milliken said that South Africa had already put an end to the "pseudo-hunting". There are 20,000 white rhinos at present, he said, and despite more than 600 being poached in 2012, the population is rising.
Milliken said: "It is probably a good idea to keep these [trophy-hunting] incentives for private wildlife reserve owners at a time when they are having to spend more on protection from poachers." He said, in contrast, Vietnam was doing extremely little to tackle rhino sales.
The Cites meeting did, however, unanimously raise the protection of the west African manatee to the highest level, overriding advice from officials that "scant" scientific data did not support the move.
The slow-moving creature, which can measure up to 4.5m long and weigh 350kg, is found in the coastal lagoons and rivers of 21 states, and can reach as far inland as Mali, Niger and Chad.
Illegal kills can raise $4,500 per animal and less than 10,000 remain. They are hunted for meat and oil, killed as by bycatch by fishermen and also suffer as their habitat is destroyed by mangrove harvesting, pollution and dams. The Cites conference also bid farewell to a series of extinct animals by removing them from protection lists, including Australia's dusky flying fox, crescent nail-tail wallaby, buff-nosed rat-kangaroo and the pig-footed- and rabbit-eared bandicoots.
Wildlife Trade - CITES Issues
-
Flutterby
- Posts: 44029
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:28 pm
- Country: South Africa
- Location: Gauteng, South Africa
- Contact:
Re: CITES CoP16 (March 2013)
Just seen this on FB.
News from CITES convention:
CHINA REFUSES TO STEP DOWN IN IVORY TRADE. THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO INVADING AFRICA & DESTROYING ITS FUTURE.
China has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of respecting or abiding to any CITES efforts to save elephants, tigers, rhino, lions or any other African or Indian wildlife, China chooses to kill on foreign soil.
News from CITES convention:
CHINA REFUSES TO STEP DOWN IN IVORY TRADE. THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO INVADING AFRICA & DESTROYING ITS FUTURE.
China has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of respecting or abiding to any CITES efforts to save elephants, tigers, rhino, lions or any other African or Indian wildlife, China chooses to kill on foreign soil.
-
Richprins
- Committee Member
- Posts: 75386
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
- Location: NELSPRUIT
- Contact:
Re: CITES CoP16 (March 2013)
China has a hold on a large part of the African continent, including SA.
Will start a forum about that in a couple of weeks.
Will start a forum about that in a couple of weeks.
Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
Re: CITES CoP16 (March 2013)
Minister Edna Molewa’s statement on the outcomes of Cites CoP16
19 March 2013
South Africa has offered to host the 17th Conference of Parties of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES COP17) in 2016.
South Africa believes the time has come for the CITES COP to be held on South African soil. As the third most mega-biodiverse country in the world, South Africa is always ready to take any leadership role in the conservation of biodiversity at all levels by working with different partners at national, regional and global levels. This is one of the reasons why, at this crucial time when the Convention is faced with complex trade, livelihoods and conservation issues, South Africa is ready to host the meeting in 2016.
The proposal to host the next CITES Conference of Parties in South Africa was accepted by all delegates at the closing ceremony for the 16th COP in Bangkok, Thailand, last week.
More than 2 000 delegates from 178 countries, non-governmental organisations and civil society attended the 16th COP, celebrating the 40th anniversary of CITES and deliberating on matters relating to the effective implementation of the Convention, including the amendment of the Appendices containing the species regulated in terms of the Convention. The 16th COP was characterised by dynamic debate on issues related to the conservation and protection of plant and animal species for future generations.
Over the two weeks, delegates robustly debated and decided how to improve the world’s wildlife trade regime, taking stock of progress made in ensuring survival of endangered species such as the leopard, rhino, cheetah, elephant, timber species and hoodia. Representatives also decided on which species were to be down-listed or up-listed on the CITES Appendices, determining which species may or may not be traded under strict international controls. Listing of sharks species to appendix II took a lot of time for delegates and the discussion was reopened twice.
While South Africa garnered a fair share of attention through the hosting of a series of side events directed at starting an international debate about whether rhino horn should be traded legally, under strictly-controlled CITES conditions, or not, a number of decisions were taken by Parties on species directly affecting South Africa.
The document relating to the management of “harvest for export quotas” for leopard was adopted by consensus. The document was developed by South Africa through collaboration with various SADC member states and the United States and addresses the challenges experienced in terms of the export and re-export of leopard trophies. This related directly to the proper labelling of leopard trophies, hunted in South Africa, and exported to the United States. A decision was adopted to enable the relevant Parties to report on difficulties experienced in terms of the implementation of the changes adopted and to determine whether the same process can be used for other species.
As many South Africans know, Hoodia is a plant that is widely used in weight loss and appetite suppressant products and was listed in CITES Appendix II in 2004 with an unusual annotation that was designed to promote sustainable use by local communities and value addition in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana. The original wording was ambiguous and the proposal adopted by CoP16 was to clarify the purpose of the annotation. The rewording of the labels clarifies bioprospecting rights agreements that benefit local communities. South Africa is one of the leading countries in the bioprospecting issues and it has recently been acceded to the Nagoya Protocol on fair and equitable access to benefits on genetic resources.
A proposal from Kenya and Tanzania to list East African sandalwood in CITES Appendix II was adopted. This species occurs more widely in Africa, including in South Africa, where they are not yet under threat from overharvesting. The proposal was amended to include only the populations in East Africa, which means sandalwood occurring in this region will in future be subject to regulation through CITES. South Africa will, however, participate in a CITES process to review the status and trade in sandalwood to make sure that our population does not experience increased harvesting as a result of shifts in trade, thus threatening the survival of the species.
Kenya had initially put forward a proposal to place a zero export quota on hunting trophies from South Africa and Swaziland until CoP18. Subsequent to deliberations in the margins of the meeting, Kenya withdrew the proposal. Concerns relating to increased enforcement, compliance monitoring, reporting and the restriction of re-export of hunting trophies were addressed through provisions in other documents discussed at the meeting, including the exclusion of rhino horn from the exemption provisions applicable to personal and household effects; this means that a person will not be able to move rhino horn as part of his/her personal belongings between countries and that permits will be required. South Africa should be commended by initiating discussions with Kenya towards the completion of an MOU between the 2 countries.
The Conference of Parties looked at the Security report of the Secretariat on Rhino, from various groups, with specific focus on the Use of Rhino products by Asian countries. A Working Group consisting of range, transit and consumer states, as categorised in the TRAFFIC report, was constituted and developed a decision focusing on strengthening enforcement and enhancing Rhino safety. The decision emphasises two major aspects of enforcement, demand reduction and legislation strengthening and harmonisation.
The decision also notes the responsibility on consumer countries, to develop and implement a demand reduction strategy that is aimed at reducing the demand for Rhino products that is a driver illegal killing of rhinos
South Africa as a range state is hoping to see more commitment from both consumer and transit states by developing programmes to create awareness, law enforcement, technology development, and information exchange on stopping rhino poaching. The decision will continue to serve as a guide to South Africa, in improving relations through intended MOUs with several affected countries like Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and China
Togo, Mali, Burkina Faso and Kenya withdrew their proposal to amend the annotation to the Appendix II listing of the African elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to include all range States in the restrictions applicable to the four countries relating to ivory trade. The Parties had wanted to ensure the restrictions applied to the Southern African states would apply to all African elephant range States. As part of a compromise position reached at CoP14 in 2007, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe agreed to a nine year moratorium (that took effect from the date of the once-off ivory sales) provided a decision making mechanism for trade in ivory was developed and adopted at CoP16. Unfortunately this decision-making mechanism could not be finalised for consideration at CoP16, but an action plan with clear timeframes was adopted to ensure a mechanism would be finalised for consideration by CoP17 in South Africa.
In addition, various decisions were adopted to address important matters emanating from the reports presented on the Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programmes as well as the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS).
Among these was that the CITES Secretariat shall, subject to external funding, convene a CITES Ivory Enforcement Task Force, consisting of representatives from China (including Hong Kong Self Administration Region), Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania and Vietnam, in cooperation with International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) partner organisations and, as appropriate, other Parties and experts, to:
review existing strategies and develop new approaches to combat illegal trade in ivory;
propose measures to African and Asian enforcement authorities to promote long-term collaboration between them, for example through exchange programmes or the secondment of law enforcement officers from destination or transit countries to source countries and vice versa;
examine and advise about existing DNA-based and forensic identification techniques for sourcing and ageing ivory, identify relevant forensic facilities and research institutions, and consider the need for further research in these areas;
develop, in cooperation with the World Bank and other ICCWC partners, an anti-money-laundering and asset recovery manual with a specific focus on wildlife crime, that can be used for the training of investigators, prosecutors and judges. The Secretariat shall, subject to external funding contact each Party identified in the ETIS report of TRAFFIC as being of ‘secondary concern’ (Cameroon, China, the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Mozambique, Nigeria and Uganda) and each country identified in the same document as being of‘importance to watch’ (Angola, Cambodia, Japan, Laos People’s Democratic Republic. Qatar and United Arab Emirates) to seek clarification on their implementation of CITES and other provisions concerning control of trade in elephant ivory and ivory markets, and report its findings and recommendations at the 65th meeting of the Standing Committee.
In terms of compliance and law enforcement, a decision was adopted that the Secretary-General of CITES would write to the President of the United Nations Security Council and the Secretariat General of the United Nations to convey the concerns of the Parties to CITES about:
a) the levels of illegal killing of elephants in Africa and the related illegal trade in elephant ivory;
b) the national security implications for certain countries in Africa of this illegal killing and trade; and
c) request that these concerns be brought to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council;
It was also decided that CITES Secretary-General, Mr John Scanlon, will consult with the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to further explore the most appropriate way to draw these concerns to the attention of the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly.
In addition, CITES Parties involved in large-scale ivory seizures – a seizure of 500kg or more – is in future expected to collect and submit samples from the ivory seized to an appropriate forensic analysis facility within 90 days of the seizure to determine the origin of the ivory samples with the aim of addressing the entire crime chain. South Africa welcomed these decisions.
Amendments to the Resolution relating to the trade in elephant specimens were adopted and South Africa is of the view that the amendment that now requires more countries to take national measures to address illegal activities involving ivory and other elephant specimens will assist in addressing concerns related to these crimes.
With regard to cheetah, a decision was adopted to undertake an independent study of both the legal and illegal trade in wild cheetah, and the impacts of this trade on the conservation of these animals. The study will investigate the sources of cheetahs in illegal trade, transit routes of trafficked cheetahs and document measures taken with regard to confiscated live specimens. South Africa supported the adoption of the decision.
But, it was not only decisions related to the conservation of species that were taken. CITES members also decided on future procedural matters. This included the decision that countries will be permitted to continue requesting a secret ballot on controversial issues, such as elephant ivory trade or the international trade of critically endangered species such as tiger, following a proposal for full openness in voting in future.
The South African delegation played an instrumental role in ensuring that CITES’ Rules of Procedure could in future only be amended through a two-thirds majority vote. In the spirit of constructiveness and cooperation, South Africa had chaired the Working Group on the Rules of Procedure in the hope of reaching consensus on the proposals to amend the rules that guide decision-making and the procedures followed to amend the rules.
South Africa was successful in ensuring that amendments of the rules be considered as a substantive amendment, thus resulting in the future requirement of a two-thirds majority and not a simple majority vote when deciding on important conservation issues. It was as a result of this decision that a motion brought to amend the procedure for voting by secret ballot, especially on controversial issues, did not pass.
A decision was taken by the Parties that CITES-related projects eligible for Global Environment Facility funding be identified by member states and prioritised within their National Biodiversity Action Plans. That would include issues covered by the African Elephant Action Plan.
The message the South African delegation had brought to CITES, as one of the organisation’s founding members, was supported by the government’s policy of sustainable utilisation of natural resources as a biodiversity conservation tool. It is because of adaptive management and sustainable utilisation practices that South Africa has developed and maintained a proud conservation record, and communities have contributed to the Conservation of species while benefiting financially from the restoration and protection of species.
One of these is the Tyhefu Traditional Authority Community in the Eastern Cape, which has been able to send children to school, provide food and clothes to community members and upgrade general living conditions through the harvesting of Aloe Ferox and the provision of crystalised sap to local and international markets for creams and medicines.
Mr Mangwanandile Mjoli of the Msutu royal family, representing the Tyhefu community of Peddie, told delegates at a side event on the roles communities play in conservation while benefiting from the species, that predominantly women and youth with a low level of education harvest aloe leaves on the 50 000ha being utilised.
Besides the educational and financial benefits to the community, unemployment and crime levels have decreased, the community is moving out of extreme poverty as it is now able to not only buy clothes and pay for housing, but also school fees for the children. In addition, traditional knowledge of the medicinal purposes of the aloe is being utilised.
The future of the project includes the development of a business plan for the Tyhefu Traditional Council Aloe Project, the establishment of technical capacity in equipment and skills for processing, gaining greater market access and establishing new market partners, appointing environmental monitors to ensure the project remained viable and the species being harvested continued to expand and establishing cultivation sites for sustained supply chain. It is through projects like these that it becomes clear that without conservation of a species, communities living with it will not benefit, or survive. Our rural economy will remain stagnant and South Africa’s Bioprospecting initiatives will not be as successful as they are today.
A resolution was adopted at the COP that addressed matters relating to livelihoods. This means that the listing of certain species in the Appendices can impact on the livelihoods of poor rural communities. The resolution provides guidance through the creation of a toolkit in terms of which importing and exporting nations are required to assess the impacts of their actions on poor rural communities and the species being utilised. It also provides for measures that can be introduced to address any possible consequences of trade decisions, including aid.
For media enquiries contact:
Albi Modise
Cell: 083 490 2871
or
Eleanor Momberg
Cell: 083 400 5741
19 March 2013
South Africa has offered to host the 17th Conference of Parties of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES COP17) in 2016.
South Africa believes the time has come for the CITES COP to be held on South African soil. As the third most mega-biodiverse country in the world, South Africa is always ready to take any leadership role in the conservation of biodiversity at all levels by working with different partners at national, regional and global levels. This is one of the reasons why, at this crucial time when the Convention is faced with complex trade, livelihoods and conservation issues, South Africa is ready to host the meeting in 2016.
The proposal to host the next CITES Conference of Parties in South Africa was accepted by all delegates at the closing ceremony for the 16th COP in Bangkok, Thailand, last week.
More than 2 000 delegates from 178 countries, non-governmental organisations and civil society attended the 16th COP, celebrating the 40th anniversary of CITES and deliberating on matters relating to the effective implementation of the Convention, including the amendment of the Appendices containing the species regulated in terms of the Convention. The 16th COP was characterised by dynamic debate on issues related to the conservation and protection of plant and animal species for future generations.
Over the two weeks, delegates robustly debated and decided how to improve the world’s wildlife trade regime, taking stock of progress made in ensuring survival of endangered species such as the leopard, rhino, cheetah, elephant, timber species and hoodia. Representatives also decided on which species were to be down-listed or up-listed on the CITES Appendices, determining which species may or may not be traded under strict international controls. Listing of sharks species to appendix II took a lot of time for delegates and the discussion was reopened twice.
While South Africa garnered a fair share of attention through the hosting of a series of side events directed at starting an international debate about whether rhino horn should be traded legally, under strictly-controlled CITES conditions, or not, a number of decisions were taken by Parties on species directly affecting South Africa.
The document relating to the management of “harvest for export quotas” for leopard was adopted by consensus. The document was developed by South Africa through collaboration with various SADC member states and the United States and addresses the challenges experienced in terms of the export and re-export of leopard trophies. This related directly to the proper labelling of leopard trophies, hunted in South Africa, and exported to the United States. A decision was adopted to enable the relevant Parties to report on difficulties experienced in terms of the implementation of the changes adopted and to determine whether the same process can be used for other species.
As many South Africans know, Hoodia is a plant that is widely used in weight loss and appetite suppressant products and was listed in CITES Appendix II in 2004 with an unusual annotation that was designed to promote sustainable use by local communities and value addition in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana. The original wording was ambiguous and the proposal adopted by CoP16 was to clarify the purpose of the annotation. The rewording of the labels clarifies bioprospecting rights agreements that benefit local communities. South Africa is one of the leading countries in the bioprospecting issues and it has recently been acceded to the Nagoya Protocol on fair and equitable access to benefits on genetic resources.
A proposal from Kenya and Tanzania to list East African sandalwood in CITES Appendix II was adopted. This species occurs more widely in Africa, including in South Africa, where they are not yet under threat from overharvesting. The proposal was amended to include only the populations in East Africa, which means sandalwood occurring in this region will in future be subject to regulation through CITES. South Africa will, however, participate in a CITES process to review the status and trade in sandalwood to make sure that our population does not experience increased harvesting as a result of shifts in trade, thus threatening the survival of the species.
Kenya had initially put forward a proposal to place a zero export quota on hunting trophies from South Africa and Swaziland until CoP18. Subsequent to deliberations in the margins of the meeting, Kenya withdrew the proposal. Concerns relating to increased enforcement, compliance monitoring, reporting and the restriction of re-export of hunting trophies were addressed through provisions in other documents discussed at the meeting, including the exclusion of rhino horn from the exemption provisions applicable to personal and household effects; this means that a person will not be able to move rhino horn as part of his/her personal belongings between countries and that permits will be required. South Africa should be commended by initiating discussions with Kenya towards the completion of an MOU between the 2 countries.
The Conference of Parties looked at the Security report of the Secretariat on Rhino, from various groups, with specific focus on the Use of Rhino products by Asian countries. A Working Group consisting of range, transit and consumer states, as categorised in the TRAFFIC report, was constituted and developed a decision focusing on strengthening enforcement and enhancing Rhino safety. The decision emphasises two major aspects of enforcement, demand reduction and legislation strengthening and harmonisation.
The decision also notes the responsibility on consumer countries, to develop and implement a demand reduction strategy that is aimed at reducing the demand for Rhino products that is a driver illegal killing of rhinos
South Africa as a range state is hoping to see more commitment from both consumer and transit states by developing programmes to create awareness, law enforcement, technology development, and information exchange on stopping rhino poaching. The decision will continue to serve as a guide to South Africa, in improving relations through intended MOUs with several affected countries like Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and China
Togo, Mali, Burkina Faso and Kenya withdrew their proposal to amend the annotation to the Appendix II listing of the African elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to include all range States in the restrictions applicable to the four countries relating to ivory trade. The Parties had wanted to ensure the restrictions applied to the Southern African states would apply to all African elephant range States. As part of a compromise position reached at CoP14 in 2007, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe agreed to a nine year moratorium (that took effect from the date of the once-off ivory sales) provided a decision making mechanism for trade in ivory was developed and adopted at CoP16. Unfortunately this decision-making mechanism could not be finalised for consideration at CoP16, but an action plan with clear timeframes was adopted to ensure a mechanism would be finalised for consideration by CoP17 in South Africa.
In addition, various decisions were adopted to address important matters emanating from the reports presented on the Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programmes as well as the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS).
Among these was that the CITES Secretariat shall, subject to external funding, convene a CITES Ivory Enforcement Task Force, consisting of representatives from China (including Hong Kong Self Administration Region), Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania and Vietnam, in cooperation with International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) partner organisations and, as appropriate, other Parties and experts, to:
review existing strategies and develop new approaches to combat illegal trade in ivory;
propose measures to African and Asian enforcement authorities to promote long-term collaboration between them, for example through exchange programmes or the secondment of law enforcement officers from destination or transit countries to source countries and vice versa;
examine and advise about existing DNA-based and forensic identification techniques for sourcing and ageing ivory, identify relevant forensic facilities and research institutions, and consider the need for further research in these areas;
develop, in cooperation with the World Bank and other ICCWC partners, an anti-money-laundering and asset recovery manual with a specific focus on wildlife crime, that can be used for the training of investigators, prosecutors and judges. The Secretariat shall, subject to external funding contact each Party identified in the ETIS report of TRAFFIC as being of ‘secondary concern’ (Cameroon, China, the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Mozambique, Nigeria and Uganda) and each country identified in the same document as being of‘importance to watch’ (Angola, Cambodia, Japan, Laos People’s Democratic Republic. Qatar and United Arab Emirates) to seek clarification on their implementation of CITES and other provisions concerning control of trade in elephant ivory and ivory markets, and report its findings and recommendations at the 65th meeting of the Standing Committee.
In terms of compliance and law enforcement, a decision was adopted that the Secretary-General of CITES would write to the President of the United Nations Security Council and the Secretariat General of the United Nations to convey the concerns of the Parties to CITES about:
a) the levels of illegal killing of elephants in Africa and the related illegal trade in elephant ivory;
b) the national security implications for certain countries in Africa of this illegal killing and trade; and
c) request that these concerns be brought to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council;
It was also decided that CITES Secretary-General, Mr John Scanlon, will consult with the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to further explore the most appropriate way to draw these concerns to the attention of the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly.
In addition, CITES Parties involved in large-scale ivory seizures – a seizure of 500kg or more – is in future expected to collect and submit samples from the ivory seized to an appropriate forensic analysis facility within 90 days of the seizure to determine the origin of the ivory samples with the aim of addressing the entire crime chain. South Africa welcomed these decisions.
Amendments to the Resolution relating to the trade in elephant specimens were adopted and South Africa is of the view that the amendment that now requires more countries to take national measures to address illegal activities involving ivory and other elephant specimens will assist in addressing concerns related to these crimes.
With regard to cheetah, a decision was adopted to undertake an independent study of both the legal and illegal trade in wild cheetah, and the impacts of this trade on the conservation of these animals. The study will investigate the sources of cheetahs in illegal trade, transit routes of trafficked cheetahs and document measures taken with regard to confiscated live specimens. South Africa supported the adoption of the decision.
But, it was not only decisions related to the conservation of species that were taken. CITES members also decided on future procedural matters. This included the decision that countries will be permitted to continue requesting a secret ballot on controversial issues, such as elephant ivory trade or the international trade of critically endangered species such as tiger, following a proposal for full openness in voting in future.
The South African delegation played an instrumental role in ensuring that CITES’ Rules of Procedure could in future only be amended through a two-thirds majority vote. In the spirit of constructiveness and cooperation, South Africa had chaired the Working Group on the Rules of Procedure in the hope of reaching consensus on the proposals to amend the rules that guide decision-making and the procedures followed to amend the rules.
South Africa was successful in ensuring that amendments of the rules be considered as a substantive amendment, thus resulting in the future requirement of a two-thirds majority and not a simple majority vote when deciding on important conservation issues. It was as a result of this decision that a motion brought to amend the procedure for voting by secret ballot, especially on controversial issues, did not pass.
A decision was taken by the Parties that CITES-related projects eligible for Global Environment Facility funding be identified by member states and prioritised within their National Biodiversity Action Plans. That would include issues covered by the African Elephant Action Plan.
The message the South African delegation had brought to CITES, as one of the organisation’s founding members, was supported by the government’s policy of sustainable utilisation of natural resources as a biodiversity conservation tool. It is because of adaptive management and sustainable utilisation practices that South Africa has developed and maintained a proud conservation record, and communities have contributed to the Conservation of species while benefiting financially from the restoration and protection of species.
One of these is the Tyhefu Traditional Authority Community in the Eastern Cape, which has been able to send children to school, provide food and clothes to community members and upgrade general living conditions through the harvesting of Aloe Ferox and the provision of crystalised sap to local and international markets for creams and medicines.
Mr Mangwanandile Mjoli of the Msutu royal family, representing the Tyhefu community of Peddie, told delegates at a side event on the roles communities play in conservation while benefiting from the species, that predominantly women and youth with a low level of education harvest aloe leaves on the 50 000ha being utilised.
Besides the educational and financial benefits to the community, unemployment and crime levels have decreased, the community is moving out of extreme poverty as it is now able to not only buy clothes and pay for housing, but also school fees for the children. In addition, traditional knowledge of the medicinal purposes of the aloe is being utilised.
The future of the project includes the development of a business plan for the Tyhefu Traditional Council Aloe Project, the establishment of technical capacity in equipment and skills for processing, gaining greater market access and establishing new market partners, appointing environmental monitors to ensure the project remained viable and the species being harvested continued to expand and establishing cultivation sites for sustained supply chain. It is through projects like these that it becomes clear that without conservation of a species, communities living with it will not benefit, or survive. Our rural economy will remain stagnant and South Africa’s Bioprospecting initiatives will not be as successful as they are today.
A resolution was adopted at the COP that addressed matters relating to livelihoods. This means that the listing of certain species in the Appendices can impact on the livelihoods of poor rural communities. The resolution provides guidance through the creation of a toolkit in terms of which importing and exporting nations are required to assess the impacts of their actions on poor rural communities and the species being utilised. It also provides for measures that can be introduced to address any possible consequences of trade decisions, including aid.
For media enquiries contact:
Albi Modise
Cell: 083 490 2871
or
Eleanor Momberg
Cell: 083 400 5741
-
Richprins
- Committee Member
- Posts: 75386
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
- Location: NELSPRUIT
- Contact:
Re: CITES CoP16 (March 2013)
Well done, SA!
Hosting the next COP is a big honour.
Not much else of substance directly relating to us, though...
A resolution was adopted at the COP that addressed matters relating to livelihoods. This means that the listing of certain species in the Appendices can impact on the livelihoods of poor rural communities. The resolution provides guidance through the creation of a toolkit in terms of which importing and exporting nations are required to assess the impacts of their actions on poor rural communities and the species being utilised. It also provides for measures that can be introduced to address any possible consequences of trade decisions, including aid.
This is the Chinese screwing Africa, mostly regarding ivory at the moment, with potential sanctions, if they have the guts!
Hosting the next COP is a big honour.
Not much else of substance directly relating to us, though...
A resolution was adopted at the COP that addressed matters relating to livelihoods. This means that the listing of certain species in the Appendices can impact on the livelihoods of poor rural communities. The resolution provides guidance through the creation of a toolkit in terms of which importing and exporting nations are required to assess the impacts of their actions on poor rural communities and the species being utilised. It also provides for measures that can be introduced to address any possible consequences of trade decisions, including aid.
This is the Chinese screwing Africa, mostly regarding ivory at the moment, with potential sanctions, if they have the guts!
Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
-
RogerFraser
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5069
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:36 pm
- Country: South Africa
- Location: Durban
- Contact:
Invitation: preparations for CITES CoP17
https://www.environment.gov.za/event/de ... invitation
Invitation: register for participation in the preparations for CITES CoP17
The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has initiated the process to prepare for the 17th Conference of Parties (COP17) to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 24 September to 05 October 2016.
The department therefore invites you to register for participation in the preparations for CITES CoP17 and to submit draft proposals for consideration by the National Scientific and Management Authority (NSMA). Draft proposals must be based on Resolution Conf 9.24.
Please note that the department established the Committee of Inquiry to assist with preparations for CITES CoP 17 in terms of rhino and elephant matters and therefore possible proposals pertaining to rhino and elephant matters will be dealt with by the Committee of Inquiry. The department will coordinate and facilitate the consultation process to discuss proposal relating to other species.
The department will convene a consultation meeting as soon as all stakeholders are registered and proposals are received.
Registration and enquiries
Enquiries as well as personal details including name, address and contact details for registration and any draft proposals should be sent to:
Mr Mpho Tjiane
E-mail: mtjiane@environment.gov.za
Tel: 012 399 9596
Closing date
15 August 2015
Invitation: register for participation in the preparations for CITES CoP17
The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) has initiated the process to prepare for the 17th Conference of Parties (COP17) to Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 24 September to 05 October 2016.
The department therefore invites you to register for participation in the preparations for CITES CoP17 and to submit draft proposals for consideration by the National Scientific and Management Authority (NSMA). Draft proposals must be based on Resolution Conf 9.24.
Please note that the department established the Committee of Inquiry to assist with preparations for CITES CoP 17 in terms of rhino and elephant matters and therefore possible proposals pertaining to rhino and elephant matters will be dealt with by the Committee of Inquiry. The department will coordinate and facilitate the consultation process to discuss proposal relating to other species.
The department will convene a consultation meeting as soon as all stakeholders are registered and proposals are received.
Registration and enquiries
Enquiries as well as personal details including name, address and contact details for registration and any draft proposals should be sent to:
Mr Mpho Tjiane
E-mail: mtjiane@environment.gov.za
Tel: 012 399 9596
Closing date
15 August 2015
Wildlife Trade - CITES Issues
How CITES is undermining its wildlife regulations
osted on 26 February, 2016 by Conservation Action Trust in Conservation, Poaching, Wildlife — 2 Comments
Posted: February 26, 2016
554
17 0 0
Written by: Don Pinnock
Poachers aren’t the only problem when it comes to wildlife trafficking. Also complicit are the very institutions and rules designed to protect animals, and the people that are meant to enforce them.
Blood-permits
In 1973 the United Nations drafted an agreement – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) – to protect all non-human living things from cross-border exploitation. However, if it’s judged by that which it seeks to prevent, the agreement is a failure.
After drugs and human trafficking, illicit wildlife trade has become the third most lucrative crime in the world. Yet in the past 20 years not a single ‘kingpin’ trafficker has been arrested and prosecuted – either at the production or consumer end of the supply chain.
This year CITES delegates from 180 countries will be meeting on African soil for the first time. The question that they urgently need to ask when they gather in Johannesburg is whether failure to curb this trade is because such crime is beyond the reach of any agreement, or because of failings within the CITES regulatory process. If previous such meetings are a gauge, this is a question unlikely to be asked.
CITES spends millions of dollars to ensure that the future of endangered species is taken care of. The backbone of this process is its permitting system, which regulates international trade. Investigator Karl Ammann has found disturbing gaps in this process, causing him to question the value of the CITES mechanisms and the honesty of many of its officials.
“They’re not really conservationists,” he says. “It’s all about not rocking the boat, and pretending everything is hunky-dory and that they’re fulfilling their role. Any information that doesn’t fit their picture, they try to cover up. I’ve publicly accused them of covering up a wide range of criminal activities. I have the evidence. I’ve asked them to take me to court so I can present information they ignore. They won’t. Even with solid evidence, they’re actively covering up for China. So where do you go?”
An accusation like that needs strong proof to back it, I tell him. Can he supply that? For the next two days my inbox pings constantly with documents, reports and photographs that make for startling reading.
According to the CITES website, permits for the trans-shipment of animals, reptiles, fish or plants are issued in terms of three Appendices, depending on the degree of protection a species needs. If a creature is listed in Appendix 1, an import and export permit should only be issued if it is not going to be a commercial transaction, has been legally obtained and the animal’s removal is not detrimental to the survival of the species.
For the last point – survival – an exporting country has to provide a ‘non-detriment finding’ done by the CITES scientific authority, which is meant to be a check on that country’s management authority. Wild-caught, Appendix-1-listed creatures cannot be exported for commercial purposes.
For Appendices 2 and 3 – species not endangered – export permits, but not import permits, are required and conditions are generally less stringent.
In this process, the devil is in the detail. If a creature is bred in captivity, whatever the status of its wild cousins, its ‘source code’ on the permit is listed as ‘C’ (captive bred) and it can be traded.
This has led to what Ammann calls the ‘C-scam’ and has been used, for example, to illegally export hundreds of wild-caught chimps and gorillas to China from African countries that have no captive breeding facilities. CITES officials in the exporting and importing countries, he says, must know this, but they supply the permits anyway and turn a blind eye.
The UN Office of Drugs and Crime acknowledges the complicity of CITES officials in permit scams. “Corruption,” it says, “involves a variety of actors, including the CITES competent authorities, public officials, villagers, forest rangers, police, customs, traders and brokers, professional/international hunters, logistics companies (shipping lines, airlines), veterinarians, and game farmers, among others.”
There’s another problem. Originally all permits had to go through the CITES head office in Geneva for inspection. But in 2002, claiming budgetary restraints, the CITES secretariat unilaterally decided that permits need only be cleared by its officials in the countries concerned and only reported in summary to Geneva.
It also discontinued ‘infraction reporting’, done when member states were suspected of not acting in compliance with convention rules and where corrupt and criminal acts might have been committed. For poachers the leaky process was heaven-sent.
At the 2002 CITES meeting that year, the host country, Chile, called for a mechanism to urgently limit the circulation of CITES permits to avoid their fraudulent use, but the Secretariat shot down the proposal on technicalities.
According to Ammann, the point was made at the time that countries with poor governance records had resisted exposure to a ‘name and shame’ regime administered from Geneva. So CITES policy makers decided the easiest way to solve infractions was to stop looking for them.
“The philosophy of the Secretariat seemed to be that it wasn’t a good idea for people all sitting in a glass house to throw stones,” says Ammann, staring sadly over the Cape docks as seagulls scream at us for tidbits. “It was the end of effective regulation of trade in many endangered species.”
Officials, syndicates and poachers in certain CITES countries with valuable wild species quickly realised that less control meant more opportunities to advance personal interests. Some dealers assembled special wild population capture teams. A CITES official in Guinea told Ammann: “CITES is the dirtiest of the conventions when it comes to the falsification of permits and fraud.”
By infiltrating networks, Ammann obtained a sheaf of permits from traders involved in a wide range of such transactions. They were using the Middle East and North Africa as transit points, mostly falsely declaring these countries as the points of origin based on permits stating that the primates were captive-born. When Ammann presented the head of a CITES delegation in Geneva with documentary evidence of this, the official claimed it was fake and threw the report into the street outside the conference centre.
“There are worldwide mafia networks of interlinked dealers conducting their business openly,” says Ammann. “They all claim to have good relations with the relevant CITES management authorities and are able to get pretty much any CITES export or import permit they want. The standard fee asked for an illegal permit across Central Africa is US$5,000.”
The buyer is then free to stipulate whether the source code is wild or captive born and the management authority will fill in whatever the buyer requires. They don’t need a detailed address of a shipment’s destination.
“Anybody can fill in pretty much anything with regards to the final destination or the facility sending or receiving them. I analysed over 100 such permits and not a single one had the required exit stamps, or information from the relevant customs authorities about the specific animal or numbers actually inside the crate.”
One permit for two tortoises was used to sanction supply of two elephants. A permit issued for African grey parrots was used to export four African manatees to China. Some animals were shipped from Guinea with a falsified DRC permit.
On at least two occasions, traffickers told Ammann that if the buyer insisted on a proper but falsified permit for apes, they’d make sure their own CITES official would not file the duplicate copies of the permits when they did their annual reports to Geneva.
In Japan, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) found that after CITES approved ‘experimental’ lifting of the ban on ivory trade in 1999 and 2008, the sale of illegal ivory skyrocketed, as did poaching in Africa. Even after the ban was reinstated, the EIA found that more than 1,000 tusks of dubious origin were being traded in Japan each year, many probably sold on to China. Between 2010 and 2012, a Chinese husband-and-wife team was caught smuggling almost 3.26 tons of ivory from Japan into mainland China using Chinese nationals in Japan as intermediaries. The EIA described the trade as loopholes within loopholes: ‘Japan is awash with ivory and not a shred of real evidence is required by law to ensure that ivory is of legal origin and acquisition.’
“There’s no doubt that hundreds of fake and falsified permits are being issued annually,” says Ammann. “In terms of bribes collected, hundreds of thousands of dollars are ending up with dealers who use the money to pay corrupt CITES officials.”
Member governments are obliged to prosecute offending traders and officials based on illegal activity. They must then confiscate the animals in question and discuss with the countries of origin a possible return of the animals. That’s the theory. In practice there appears resistance at every level, starting with the CITES Secretariat, which will not push members to have this enforced.
“The question that needs to be asked,” says Ammann, “is whether this lack of will by the Secretariat to enforce the Convention is a major contributing factor to these illegal transactions? Is illegal trade being actively encouraged by this lack of control?”
Ammann recently had a conversation with a top UN official who knew what was on his mind when requesting the meeting. The first question came from the official: “Are we better off with CITES or without it?” It was clearly what critical observers had asked many times before.
“There’s little doubt,” said Ammann, “that in most cases he gets the answer he’s looking for: Whatever the flaws, we’re better off with some kind of regulatory framework than without one. My response at the time was the same. Today I am no longer sure.”
With many recent permit infractions, China seems to be the main beneficiary and appears to have been granted a special ‘hands-off’ status to do as it pleases. As long as Chinese demand exists and circumventing international conventions has no consequences, the killing and trading will go on.
China’s Wildlife Protection Law is presently undergoing its first major revision in 26 years since it came into force. There was hope that this would signal a crackdown on poaching and wildlife trade. However, the draft, currently under public consultation, states that wildlife can be used in the manufacture of Chinese traditional medicine, healthcare products and food for profit. According to the EIA, if this draft becomes law it would open, rather than close the loopholes in wildlife trafficking.
When COP17 (not to be confused with the climate change COP17) meets in Johannesburg in September this year, will delegates debate the CITES’ permitting problems? If Ammann is to be believed, don’t hold your breath.
- See more at: http://africageographic.com/blog/how-ci ... zYGH1.dpuf
osted on 26 February, 2016 by Conservation Action Trust in Conservation, Poaching, Wildlife — 2 Comments
Posted: February 26, 2016
554
17 0 0
Written by: Don Pinnock
Poachers aren’t the only problem when it comes to wildlife trafficking. Also complicit are the very institutions and rules designed to protect animals, and the people that are meant to enforce them.
Blood-permits
In 1973 the United Nations drafted an agreement – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) – to protect all non-human living things from cross-border exploitation. However, if it’s judged by that which it seeks to prevent, the agreement is a failure.
After drugs and human trafficking, illicit wildlife trade has become the third most lucrative crime in the world. Yet in the past 20 years not a single ‘kingpin’ trafficker has been arrested and prosecuted – either at the production or consumer end of the supply chain.
This year CITES delegates from 180 countries will be meeting on African soil for the first time. The question that they urgently need to ask when they gather in Johannesburg is whether failure to curb this trade is because such crime is beyond the reach of any agreement, or because of failings within the CITES regulatory process. If previous such meetings are a gauge, this is a question unlikely to be asked.
CITES spends millions of dollars to ensure that the future of endangered species is taken care of. The backbone of this process is its permitting system, which regulates international trade. Investigator Karl Ammann has found disturbing gaps in this process, causing him to question the value of the CITES mechanisms and the honesty of many of its officials.
“They’re not really conservationists,” he says. “It’s all about not rocking the boat, and pretending everything is hunky-dory and that they’re fulfilling their role. Any information that doesn’t fit their picture, they try to cover up. I’ve publicly accused them of covering up a wide range of criminal activities. I have the evidence. I’ve asked them to take me to court so I can present information they ignore. They won’t. Even with solid evidence, they’re actively covering up for China. So where do you go?”
An accusation like that needs strong proof to back it, I tell him. Can he supply that? For the next two days my inbox pings constantly with documents, reports and photographs that make for startling reading.
According to the CITES website, permits for the trans-shipment of animals, reptiles, fish or plants are issued in terms of three Appendices, depending on the degree of protection a species needs. If a creature is listed in Appendix 1, an import and export permit should only be issued if it is not going to be a commercial transaction, has been legally obtained and the animal’s removal is not detrimental to the survival of the species.
For the last point – survival – an exporting country has to provide a ‘non-detriment finding’ done by the CITES scientific authority, which is meant to be a check on that country’s management authority. Wild-caught, Appendix-1-listed creatures cannot be exported for commercial purposes.
For Appendices 2 and 3 – species not endangered – export permits, but not import permits, are required and conditions are generally less stringent.
In this process, the devil is in the detail. If a creature is bred in captivity, whatever the status of its wild cousins, its ‘source code’ on the permit is listed as ‘C’ (captive bred) and it can be traded.
This has led to what Ammann calls the ‘C-scam’ and has been used, for example, to illegally export hundreds of wild-caught chimps and gorillas to China from African countries that have no captive breeding facilities. CITES officials in the exporting and importing countries, he says, must know this, but they supply the permits anyway and turn a blind eye.
The UN Office of Drugs and Crime acknowledges the complicity of CITES officials in permit scams. “Corruption,” it says, “involves a variety of actors, including the CITES competent authorities, public officials, villagers, forest rangers, police, customs, traders and brokers, professional/international hunters, logistics companies (shipping lines, airlines), veterinarians, and game farmers, among others.”
There’s another problem. Originally all permits had to go through the CITES head office in Geneva for inspection. But in 2002, claiming budgetary restraints, the CITES secretariat unilaterally decided that permits need only be cleared by its officials in the countries concerned and only reported in summary to Geneva.
It also discontinued ‘infraction reporting’, done when member states were suspected of not acting in compliance with convention rules and where corrupt and criminal acts might have been committed. For poachers the leaky process was heaven-sent.
At the 2002 CITES meeting that year, the host country, Chile, called for a mechanism to urgently limit the circulation of CITES permits to avoid their fraudulent use, but the Secretariat shot down the proposal on technicalities.
According to Ammann, the point was made at the time that countries with poor governance records had resisted exposure to a ‘name and shame’ regime administered from Geneva. So CITES policy makers decided the easiest way to solve infractions was to stop looking for them.
“The philosophy of the Secretariat seemed to be that it wasn’t a good idea for people all sitting in a glass house to throw stones,” says Ammann, staring sadly over the Cape docks as seagulls scream at us for tidbits. “It was the end of effective regulation of trade in many endangered species.”
Officials, syndicates and poachers in certain CITES countries with valuable wild species quickly realised that less control meant more opportunities to advance personal interests. Some dealers assembled special wild population capture teams. A CITES official in Guinea told Ammann: “CITES is the dirtiest of the conventions when it comes to the falsification of permits and fraud.”
By infiltrating networks, Ammann obtained a sheaf of permits from traders involved in a wide range of such transactions. They were using the Middle East and North Africa as transit points, mostly falsely declaring these countries as the points of origin based on permits stating that the primates were captive-born. When Ammann presented the head of a CITES delegation in Geneva with documentary evidence of this, the official claimed it was fake and threw the report into the street outside the conference centre.
“There are worldwide mafia networks of interlinked dealers conducting their business openly,” says Ammann. “They all claim to have good relations with the relevant CITES management authorities and are able to get pretty much any CITES export or import permit they want. The standard fee asked for an illegal permit across Central Africa is US$5,000.”
The buyer is then free to stipulate whether the source code is wild or captive born and the management authority will fill in whatever the buyer requires. They don’t need a detailed address of a shipment’s destination.
“Anybody can fill in pretty much anything with regards to the final destination or the facility sending or receiving them. I analysed over 100 such permits and not a single one had the required exit stamps, or information from the relevant customs authorities about the specific animal or numbers actually inside the crate.”
One permit for two tortoises was used to sanction supply of two elephants. A permit issued for African grey parrots was used to export four African manatees to China. Some animals were shipped from Guinea with a falsified DRC permit.
On at least two occasions, traffickers told Ammann that if the buyer insisted on a proper but falsified permit for apes, they’d make sure their own CITES official would not file the duplicate copies of the permits when they did their annual reports to Geneva.
In Japan, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) found that after CITES approved ‘experimental’ lifting of the ban on ivory trade in 1999 and 2008, the sale of illegal ivory skyrocketed, as did poaching in Africa. Even after the ban was reinstated, the EIA found that more than 1,000 tusks of dubious origin were being traded in Japan each year, many probably sold on to China. Between 2010 and 2012, a Chinese husband-and-wife team was caught smuggling almost 3.26 tons of ivory from Japan into mainland China using Chinese nationals in Japan as intermediaries. The EIA described the trade as loopholes within loopholes: ‘Japan is awash with ivory and not a shred of real evidence is required by law to ensure that ivory is of legal origin and acquisition.’
“There’s no doubt that hundreds of fake and falsified permits are being issued annually,” says Ammann. “In terms of bribes collected, hundreds of thousands of dollars are ending up with dealers who use the money to pay corrupt CITES officials.”
Member governments are obliged to prosecute offending traders and officials based on illegal activity. They must then confiscate the animals in question and discuss with the countries of origin a possible return of the animals. That’s the theory. In practice there appears resistance at every level, starting with the CITES Secretariat, which will not push members to have this enforced.
“The question that needs to be asked,” says Ammann, “is whether this lack of will by the Secretariat to enforce the Convention is a major contributing factor to these illegal transactions? Is illegal trade being actively encouraged by this lack of control?”
Ammann recently had a conversation with a top UN official who knew what was on his mind when requesting the meeting. The first question came from the official: “Are we better off with CITES or without it?” It was clearly what critical observers had asked many times before.
“There’s little doubt,” said Ammann, “that in most cases he gets the answer he’s looking for: Whatever the flaws, we’re better off with some kind of regulatory framework than without one. My response at the time was the same. Today I am no longer sure.”
With many recent permit infractions, China seems to be the main beneficiary and appears to have been granted a special ‘hands-off’ status to do as it pleases. As long as Chinese demand exists and circumventing international conventions has no consequences, the killing and trading will go on.
China’s Wildlife Protection Law is presently undergoing its first major revision in 26 years since it came into force. There was hope that this would signal a crackdown on poaching and wildlife trade. However, the draft, currently under public consultation, states that wildlife can be used in the manufacture of Chinese traditional medicine, healthcare products and food for profit. According to the EIA, if this draft becomes law it would open, rather than close the loopholes in wildlife trafficking.
When COP17 (not to be confused with the climate change COP17) meets in Johannesburg in September this year, will delegates debate the CITES’ permitting problems? If Ammann is to be believed, don’t hold your breath.
- See more at: http://africageographic.com/blog/how-ci ... zYGH1.dpuf
Preparations and Progress - CITES COP17
https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/22212/
Committee Meetings
Environmental Affairs
Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs Strategic Planning Workshop
Chairperson: Mr J Mthembu (ANC)
Date of Meeting: 15 March 2016
Committee Meetings
Environmental Affairs
Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs Strategic Planning Workshop
Chairperson: Mr J Mthembu (ANC)
Date of Meeting: 15 March 2016
POSSIBLE PROPOSALS
•Proposals to amend the Appendices –Not initiated by South Africa:
–Kenya indicated that it will submit a proposal to list lion in Appendix I
–African grey Parrot: App I (Ghana)
–African elephant –African elephant coalition: Amendment to Annotation
–Shark proposals to list sharks in Appendix II (Silky shark & Thresher shark)
•South Africa: Proposals to be submitted by South Africa (subject to Cabinet approval)
–Cape mountain zebra –Proposed to downlistto Appendix II (Based on non-detriment finding: Scientific Authority)
–Siphonochilusa ethiopicus(wild ginger) –Proposed listing Appendix II (Based on work done by SANBI)
–Pangolin: Proposed listing in Appendix I
POSSIBLE RESOLUTIONS
•Trade in hunting trophies of species listed in Appendix II
–Seeks to clarify the uniform interpretation of the Convention with regards to hunting trophies,
–Emphasising “the contribution of hunting to conservation, socio-economic beneficiation and to provide incentives for people to conserve wildlife
•Illegal Wildlife Trade
Highlights the need for
–International cooperation,
–The sharing of best practices and enforcement resources,
–The mobilisation of funds for sustainable interventions in order to combat illegal wildlife tradein CITES listed species
–While emphasising the important role played by local communities
POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS: COP 17
•Species trade and conservation (Bushmeat, Elephants, Rhinoceros, sharks and rays)
-
RogerFraser
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5069
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:36 pm
- Country: South Africa
- Location: Durban
- Contact:
Record agenda for World Wildlife Conference – CITES CoP17 –
https://cites.org/eng/news/pr/record_ag ... ica_020516
PRESS RELEASE
Record agenda for World Wildlife Conference – CITES CoP17 –
to be held in South Africa in September
Geneva, 2 May 2016 – A record 175 documents proposing new measures and policies on international trade in wild fauna and flora were submitted by the 27 April deadline for consideration at the World Wildlife Conference - the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES CoP17). Among these documents, 60 are proposals to amend the lists of species subject to CITES trade controls were submitted by over 80 Parties from across the world.
These proposals and documents will be decided upon at the triennial meeting of the 182 Parties to CITES (181 countries and the European Union), which will be held from 24 September to 5 October 2016 in Johannesburg, South Africa. The proposals are now available on the CITES web site in the languages and formats in which they were received. Parties have 60 days to provide their comments on the proposals. The CITES Secretariat will also invite comments from relevant intergovernmental bodies.
The CoP17 agenda furthermore features 115 working documents that analyse a wide range of wildlife trade issues, and recommend new measures and policies concerning international trade in wild fauna and flora. While most of these documents have been prepared by the CITES community in the course of the last three years, some 40 additional ones were submitted by Parties by the deadline of 27 April 2016.
“CITES decisions determine the international rules governing trade in wildlife. CoP17 is shaping up as one of the most critical meetings in the 40+ year history of the Convention, with the agenda addressing a vast array of issues, including bringing new species under CITES trade controls, changing the current status of existing CITES-listed species, supporting legal and sustainable wildlife trade as well as a broad range of measures to tackle illicit wildlife trafficking, such as fighting corruption, enhanced enforcement, targeted demand reduction and supporting local livelihoods” said Secretary-General, John E. Scanlon.
CoP17 will be the first meeting of the Conference to Parties following the adoption of the historic resolution by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife in 2015 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which further recognized the important role of CITES and fundamental legal framework it provides to regulate legal trade and tackle illicit trafficking in wildlife and to contribute to tangible benefits for local people.
Note to editors: For more information, contact Liu Yuan at +41 22 917 8130 or yuan.liu@cites.org
About CITES
With 182 Parties, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) remains one of the world's most powerful tools for wildlife conservation through the regulation of trade. Thousands of species are internationally traded and used by people in their daily lives for food, health care, housing, tourist souvenirs, cosmetics or fashion.
CITES regulates international trade in over 35,000 species of plants and animals, including their products and derivatives, to ensure their survival in the wild with benefits for the livelihoods of local people and the global environment. The CITES permit system seeks to ensure that international trade in listed species is sustainable, legal and traceable.
CITES was signed in Washington D.C. on 3 March 1973 and entered into force on 1 July 1975.
PRESS RELEASE
Record agenda for World Wildlife Conference – CITES CoP17 –
to be held in South Africa in September
Geneva, 2 May 2016 – A record 175 documents proposing new measures and policies on international trade in wild fauna and flora were submitted by the 27 April deadline for consideration at the World Wildlife Conference - the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES CoP17). Among these documents, 60 are proposals to amend the lists of species subject to CITES trade controls were submitted by over 80 Parties from across the world.
These proposals and documents will be decided upon at the triennial meeting of the 182 Parties to CITES (181 countries and the European Union), which will be held from 24 September to 5 October 2016 in Johannesburg, South Africa. The proposals are now available on the CITES web site in the languages and formats in which they were received. Parties have 60 days to provide their comments on the proposals. The CITES Secretariat will also invite comments from relevant intergovernmental bodies.
The CoP17 agenda furthermore features 115 working documents that analyse a wide range of wildlife trade issues, and recommend new measures and policies concerning international trade in wild fauna and flora. While most of these documents have been prepared by the CITES community in the course of the last three years, some 40 additional ones were submitted by Parties by the deadline of 27 April 2016.
“CITES decisions determine the international rules governing trade in wildlife. CoP17 is shaping up as one of the most critical meetings in the 40+ year history of the Convention, with the agenda addressing a vast array of issues, including bringing new species under CITES trade controls, changing the current status of existing CITES-listed species, supporting legal and sustainable wildlife trade as well as a broad range of measures to tackle illicit wildlife trafficking, such as fighting corruption, enhanced enforcement, targeted demand reduction and supporting local livelihoods” said Secretary-General, John E. Scanlon.
CoP17 will be the first meeting of the Conference to Parties following the adoption of the historic resolution by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife in 2015 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which further recognized the important role of CITES and fundamental legal framework it provides to regulate legal trade and tackle illicit trafficking in wildlife and to contribute to tangible benefits for local people.
Note to editors: For more information, contact Liu Yuan at +41 22 917 8130 or yuan.liu@cites.org
About CITES
With 182 Parties, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) remains one of the world's most powerful tools for wildlife conservation through the regulation of trade. Thousands of species are internationally traded and used by people in their daily lives for food, health care, housing, tourist souvenirs, cosmetics or fashion.
CITES regulates international trade in over 35,000 species of plants and animals, including their products and derivatives, to ensure their survival in the wild with benefits for the livelihoods of local people and the global environment. The CITES permit system seeks to ensure that international trade in listed species is sustainable, legal and traceable.
CITES was signed in Washington D.C. on 3 March 1973 and entered into force on 1 July 1975.