Species Survival Network

African Elephants: The Parties accepted, by consensus, a plan to allow sale of current ivory stockpiles from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, while instituting a moratorium on consideration of further ivory trade proposals from these countries for a period not less than nine years following the sale. SSN hopes that Parties will respect the spirit of this compromise and not offer proposals regarding trade in elephant ivory until after COP 18.

Sharks: In Committee I, the Parties rejected proposals to list porbeagle (Lamna nasus) (54 in favour, 39 against and 12 abstentions) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) (57 in favour, 26 against, and 10 abstentions) in Appendix II. Germany, on behalf of the EU, moved successfully to reopen debate on the spiny dogfish proposal in plenary on the last day of the meeting, but the proposal was rejected again, this time by secret ballot.

Other marine proposals: An amended proposal to list sawfishes (Pristidae) in Appendix I was accepted, with 67 votes in favour, 30 against, and 7 abstentions. A proposal to list the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) in Appendix II was accepted with in 93 in favour, 9 against, and 4 abstentions. A proposal to list red and pink corals (Corallium spp.) in Appendix II, annotated with a delayed entry into force for 18 months, was accepted in Committee by a vote of 62 in favour, 28 opposed and 13 abstentions, but was rejected in plenary by secret ballot on the last day of the meeting.

Timber proposals: An amended proposal to include brazilwood (Caesalpinia echinata) in Appendix II was adopted by consensus. The EU withdrew its proposals for listing Spanish cedar (Cedrela spp.) and rosewood (Dalbergia retusa, Dalbergia granadillo and Dalbergia stevensoni) in Appendix II. In response, the Parties adopted a plan of action to complete knowledge on the conservation status, trade in and sustainable use of Cedrela odorata and the three Dalbergia species.

Whales: The Parties rejected a proposal from Japan to conduct a periodic review of all cetaceans in Appendix I with 26 votes in favour, 54 against, and 13 abstentions. The Parties approved in Committee I, with 59 voted in favour, 21 against and 13 abstentions, a Decision proposed by Australia that no periodic review of any great whale should occur while the IWC moratorium is in place. This decision effectively repeals the controversial decision by the Animals Committee in 2006 to allow Iceland to conduct a review of the central North Atlantic stock of fin whale. Palau attempted to reopen debate on the Australian proposal in plenary on the last day of the meeting, but failed to win the required one-third support with 35 votes in favor, 71 against, and 19 abstentions.

Tigers: The Parties adopted a landmark Decision that states that “tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives.” A proposal by China to limit the text to “international” trade was rejected by the Parties 19 in favor, 47 against and 11 abstentions.

Other species: The Parties approved by consensus, proposals to include slow lorises (Nycticebus spp.), Cuvier’s gazelle (Gazella cuvieri), slender-horned gazelle (Gazella leptoceros), and Guatemalan beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti) in Appendix I, and rejected a proposal to delete bobcat (Lynx rufus) from Appendix II with 28 votes in favor, 63 against and 9 abstentions.

Proposals withdrawn: A record number of proposals were withdrawn. In addition to the proposals relating to African elephants, cedar, rosewood and Dalbergia stevensonii, Parties withdrew a proposal to list the Dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas) in Appendix I and proposals to list the Banggai cardinalfish (Pterapogon kauderni) and the Brazilian populations of the Caribbean and smoothtail spiny lobsters (Panulirus argus and Panulirus laevicauda) in Appendix II.

Socio-economic issues: The CITES Secretariat, the EU and some Parties supported agenda items that promoted the consideration of livelihoods issues and sustainable use within the CITES processes, Strategic Goals, and implementation. Though socio-economic considerations are important to the

broader scheme of conservation and development, giving them a major role in CITES threatens to undermine the basis of science-based decision-making and divert scarce resources to new priorities best handled by other instruments or national governments. Fortunately, the original documents were amended significantly by the Parties, in response to concerns that these documents went too far beyond the scope of the treaty.