<http://www.iisd.ca/>   Earth Negotiations Bulletin

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     
 A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations

 

PDF Format
 Spanish Version
French Version
IISD RS
web coverage <http://www.iisd.ca/cites/cop14/> 
 <http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2159e.pdf> 
 <http://www.iisd.ca/vol21/enb2159s.html> 
 <http://www.iisd.ca/vol21/enb2159f.html> 


Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) 
<http://iisd.ca> 

 

Vol. 21 No. 59
Thursday, 14 June 2007

CITES COP14 HIGHLIGHTS:

WEDNESDAY, 13 JUNE 2007

The fourteenth Conference of the Parties (CoP14) to CITES 
<http://www.iisd.ca/cites/cop14/>  convened in two committees throughout the 
day. A high-level Ministerial Roundtable was held in parallel to the meeting, 
and informal ministerial consultations on African elephants took place 
throughout the day and into the evening. Committee I, inter alia, approved the 
listing of pink and red coral on Appendix II and adopted decisions on tortoises 
and freshwater turtles. Committee II, inter alia, adopted a partial resolution 
on budget and several decisions on tigers. 

COMMITTEE I 

LISTING PROPOSALS: Yew: The US withdrew its proposal to amend the listing of 
Taxus cuspidata (Japanese yew) in Appendix II (CoP14 Prop.36 
<http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/14/prop/E14-P36.pdf> ), replacing it with a draft 
decision to discuss issues of hybrids and cultivars in the PC, which was 
supported by consensus.

Switzerland, as Depository Government, introduced a proposal to delete an 
annotation on yew species Taxus chinensis, T. fuana and T. sumatrana from 
Appendix II, and amend the annotation to T. cuspidata (CoP14 Prop.37 
<http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/14/prop/E14-P37.pdf> ). He explained that SC 
discussions had deemed that the earlier annotations contravened CITES 
<http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.shtml> , which does not allow the exclusion 
of any live or dead plant of a listed species, and that this proposal would 
solve the problem while retaining the original intent. Supporting the proposal, 
CANADA said the amendment would help develop Taxus plantations and reduce 
threats to wild species. THAILAND noted that all artificially propagated 
hybrids and cultivars should be exempted from CITES 
<http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.shtml> . JAPAN opposed the proposal, 
suggesting the PC discuss the issue. CHINA introduced an amendment referring to 
live plants. The proposal, as amended by China, was adopted by consensus. 

TORTOISES AND FRESHWATER TURTLES: The EU presented two draft decisions 
finalized in the drafting group (CoP14 Com.I.12). The US, supported by 
CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL and IUCN, introduced two further decisions to 
contract the IUCN Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles Specialist Group to conduct 
a study on the implementation of Res.Conf.11.9 (Rev. CoP13) (Tortoises and 
freshwater turtles), subject to external funding, and instruct the AC to review 
the study and make recommendations for CoP15. All four decisions were approved 
by consensus.

CORALS: On its proposal to list all species in the genus Corallium (pink and 
red corals) in Appendix II (CoP14 Prop.21 
<http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/14/prop/E14-P21.pdf> ), the US further proposed: 
an annotation delaying the listing’s entry into effect by 18 months to permit 
implementation measures to be put in place; and an amendment allowing an 
exemption for personal and household effects of up to seven pieces per person 
weighing no more than one kilogram in total, including any ancillary mountings. 
The US also proposed a draft decision for two implementation workshops for 
parties involved in harvesting and trade of Corallium (CoP14 Com.I.15).

The EU supported the proposed listing and decision, adding a further amendment 
to exempt fossil corals. MEXICO supported the listing but opposed the weight 
and fossil coral exemptions. Many NGOs supported the listing, with SWAN 
INTERNATIONAL saying that the listing would encourage governments to take 
immediate action to regulate coral trade, and EARTHTRUST pointing out that 
Corallium harvesting in the Pacific is not currently monitored by regional 
fisheries management bodies or the FAO. 

JAPAN opposed the listing and, with SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS, suggested holding 
the workshops first and considering the listing proposals later. Also opposing 
the listing, NORWAY emphasized that the FAO Expert Panel did not support the 
listing, MOROCCO said that Mediterranean coral is already protected, and IWMC 
and ASSOCORAL urged consideration of Italian craftsmen’s livelihoods.

The proposal, with the annotation and the amendment on fossil corals, was 
adopted by 62 votes to 28. The Committee then adopted by consensus the 
amendment to the annotation on Corallium spp. contained in the draft resolution 
on personal and household effects referred from Committee II. The Committee 
also requested the Secretariat to issue a notification reflecting the recent 
change in taxonomy of Corallium and Paracorallium spp. to facilitate the 
implementation of the listing. IWMC argued that the listing proposal did not 
include Paracorallium spp., but the US clarified that their proposal listed all 
species falling under Corallium and Paracorallium spp. and is therefore not 
broadened by the taxonomic change. 

ELEPHANTS: In the afternoon, Francis Nheme, Minister of Environment and 
Tourism, Zimbabwe, updated Committee I on the status of negotiations on 
elephant proposals, expressing confidence that an agreement may emerge during 
the evening informal ministerial consultations. Chair Leach then adjourned the 
session.

COMMITTEE II

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT: The UK introduced the revised draft decision and 
resolution (CoP14 Com.II.23), which were both accepted by consensus.

INSPECTION OF TIMBER SHIPMENTS: Italy, on behalf of the EU, introduced revised 
draft decisions (CoP14 Com.II.18), which were adopted by consensus. 

PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS: CHINA introduced a revised draft resolution and 
decision (CoP14 Com.II.16). The US proposed amendments to the draft resolution 
regarding quantitative limitations for coral species which were contingent on 
approval of a coral listing in Committee I. Chair Cheung referred the matter to 
Committee I. The EU proposed: amending the draft resolution regarding 
quantitative limitations for caviar; and adding two paragraphs to the draft 
decision requesting the SC to evaluate if specific items require different 
treatment, and implementation effectiveness of Conf. Res.13.7 (Personal and 
household effects). The revised draft resolution and decision were adopted by 
consensus with the EU’s proposed amendments. 

ASIAN BIG CATS: INDIA introduced the document prepared jointly with Nepal, 
China and the Russian Federation (CoP14 Inf.50), highlighting seven draft 
decisions on measures to address trade in Asian big cats, their parts and 
derivatives (CoP14 Com.II.19), including: actions by all parties, such as 
strengthening efforts to implement Res.Conf.12.5 (Tigers) and reporting on 
progress at SC57; and actions by range states, such as participating in a tiger 
trade enforcement meeting. 

CHINA stressed that its national tiger trade ban policy review is in line with 
the Secretariat’s recommendation to assess a new approach for addressing 
illicit trade in Asian big cats (CoP14 Doc.52). He referenced 2005 research 
demonstrating that captive breeding reduces the illegal market for tiger bone 
and provides a fundraising tool for conservation of wild populations. NEPAL, as 
Chair of the Global Tiger Forum, emphasized that tiger population numbers in 
captive breeding should not endanger wild populations.

Many delegates noted the alarming decline of wild tiger populations. Tiger 
range states reported on continued efforts in addressing tiger conservation and 
illicit trade. The EU urged parties to strengthen enforcement of Res. 
Conf.12.5. The US, supported by many, proposed a new decision whereby parties 
take into consideration Res. Conf.12.5 when, inter alia, evaluating domestic 
tiger trade control policies. He expressed concern about pressure within China 
to reopen the commercial trade in tiger parts and derivatives. Referring to his 
country’s review of its tiger trade ban, CHINA emphasized that changes to the 
policy will only occur if a positive effect on wild tiger populations can be 
demonstrated. US traditional Chinese medicine institutions, supported by INDIA, 
said that traditional Chinese medicine has embraced the development of viable 
alternatives to tiger bone. 

On captive breeding, the US proposed amending the draft decision limiting it to 
“intensive” captive breeding operations and specifying that tigers should not 
be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives. Emphasizing state 
sovereignty, CHINA proposed that the decision should apply only to 
“international” trade. The EU proposed addressing the decision to “range 
states” instead of “parties,” opposed by the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, INDIA, NEPAL 
and THAILAND, who stated that captive breeding outside range states would not 
be addressed. The Committee approved the US-proposed amendments on captive 
breeding, but dismissed those proposed by the EU and China following a vote. 

Agreeing on amendments to consider Res. Conf.12.5, and others by BHUTAN, to 
strengthen the decisions, and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION, to ensure consultation 
with tiger range states on monitoring illegal trade in Asian big cats, 
delegates approved the decisions by consensus. 

BUDGET: Budget working group Chair O’Criodain presented a draft budget for the 
triennium 2009-2011 (CoP14 Com.II.31), noting that agreement had not been 
possible in the working group regarding a budget increase compared to the past 
triennium. He presented a document with options for a 0% or a 21.56% nominal 
increase in the budget, explaining that the latter option would entail the 
suppression of two staff posts, and reducing office maintenance and CoP15 
costs, but would increase funding for activity-based work. The 0% option would 
entail maintaining the CITES <http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.shtml>  
website in English only, suppressing five staff posts, reducing CoP15 costs, 
and allocating minimal funds for activity-based work, such as scientific 
support, capacity building and enforcement. 

Several Caribbean countries, ZIMBABWE, the EU, SWITZERLAND and SOUTH AFRICA 
supported the budget increase. TRAFFIC, IUCN and WWF urged greater emphasis on 
looking for additional funds for the new strategic vision goals.

CHINA and the EU urged parties to agree by consensus, while CITES 
Secretary-General Wijnstekers noted that there has never been consensus on the 
budget, and clarified that a three-quarters majority is needed in this case. 

Chair Cheung proposed a 10% increase as a compromise, opposed by JAPAN and the 
US. Secretary-General Wijnstekers, supported by NIGERIA, TANZANIA, ZAMBIA, 
SENEGAL and BELGIUM, suggested a 15% increase, which he said could be achieved 
by suppressing three staff posts. 

Delegates voted on the 15% increase but did not arrive at the required 75% 
majority, with 47 votes in favor and 28 against. They then voted on a 10% 
increase, which did not achieve the required majority, with 50 votes in favor 
and 30 against. Finally, they voted on a 3% increase, which did not achieve the 
required majority either, with 35 votes in favor and 49 against. Delegates then 
decided to defer the decision on the budget increase to plenary, and went on to 
address the proposed resolution on budget and terms of reference for the Trust 
Fund (CoP14 Com.II.31 Annex 8). The Committee adopted amendments strengthening 
SC oversight of budgetary matters and proposals with budgetary implications. A 
clause on arrears amended by BRAZIL and ARGENTINA was also adopted by 
consensus. The resolution was then agreed by consensus, with the exception of 
the paragraph stating the specific amount of increase in budget, which was 
referred to plenary.

IN THE CORRIDORS

As CoP14 <http://www.iisd.ca/cites/cop14/>  headed into the final lap, many 
delegates reported heightened anxiety about the outcome of the protracted 
negotiations on both budget and elephant proposals. The elusive agreement among 
African range states on the latter continued to dominate discussions in the 
corridors, as negotiators tested yet another format – an informal ministerial 
consultation facilitated by Zimbabwe’s Environment Minister ­– that continued 
past midnight.

Meanwhile, the Ministerial Roundtable provoked a lively discussion on CITES 
<http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.shtml> ’ role with respect to enforcement, 
sustainable use and livelihoods, with participants debating the stage at which 
the Convention should become involved in these issues. The idea of a 
Ministerial Declaration did not garner enough support, with one high-level 
participant commenting that it contained good ideas but was too much of a fait 
accompli for his government to accept. Many others, however, stressed that the 
ministerial-level meeting was an important first step, with Dutch Environment 
Minister Verburg expressing hope that another will be held at CoP15, which 
rumors suggest may be held in sunny Qatar.  

This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > is written and edited by Soledad Aguilar, Andrew 
Brooke, Xenya Cherny Scanlon, Leonie Gordon and Sikina Jinnah. The Digital 
Editor is Anders Gonçalves da Silva, Ph.D. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, 
Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >. The Director of IISD 
Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the 
United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development – DFID), 
the Government of the United States of America (through the Department of State 
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the 
Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 
the Government of Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - 
BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), the 
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission (DG-ENV) and 
the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea. General Support for the 
Bulletin during 2007 is provided by the Swiss Federal Office for the 
Environment (FOEN), the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry 
of Environment, the Government of Australia, the Austrian Federal Ministry for 
the Environment, the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Japanese 
Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental 
Strategies - IGES) and the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry 
(through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute - 
GISPRI). Funding for translation of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into French 
has been provided by the International Organization of the Francophonie (IOF) 
and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Funding for the translation of the 
Earth Negotiations Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by the Ministry of 
Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin 
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or 
other donors. Excerpts from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in 
non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information 
on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the 
Director of IISD Reporting Services at <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> >, +1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, 
USA. The ENB Team at CITES CoP14 <http://www.iisd.ca/cites/cop14/>  can be 
contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >.

You are currently subscribed to enb as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subscribe to IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists for 
environment and sustainable development policy professionals at 
http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm

Reply via email to