Delegates met in a morning Plenary to further address
strategic and administrative matters and to hear committee
reports. During the afternoon, Committees I and II convened to
begin their respective work. The Budget Committee met in an
CITES Deputy Secretary-General Armstrong introduced, and
delegates apporved, the Report of the Secretariat (Doc.
11.9.1). Secretary-General Wijnekes presented the Secretariat
report on staffing (Doc. 11.9.2). The Plenary agreed to a UK
suggestion to endorse the report after discussion in the
Budget Committee. ICELAND announced its recent accession to
CITES and voiced reservations on the Convention’s
consistency of Appendix inclusions. He emphasized that
cetaceans species listings must be based on scientific
knowledge, not on moral or emotional reasons.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: Standing Committee: Chair Robert
Hepworth (United Kingdom) presented the Chair’s Report (Doc.
11.8). He identified challenges including: reforming the
Secretariat; implementing the 1997 "Harare
Compromise" on ivory trade; addressing escalating tiger
poaching and smuggling; developing the Strategic Plan; and
addressing non-compliance of seven Parties. On elephants, he
highlighted successes, including: cooperative work with IUCN
and TRAFFIC; the creation of the MIKE, ETIS and interim
monitoring systems; consensus on conducting ivory auctions;
and smooth conduct of trade in Africa and Japan. He said
technical and high-level tiger missions had pinpointed reasons
for smuggling tigers. Several delegations commented on the
report. On one-off sales of ivory to Japan and the Committee's
agreement to return elephants to Appendix I in the event of
non-compliance or an escalation in illegal hunting and/or
trade, ISRAEL asked for clarification of
"escalation." On a draft consolidated resolution on
cetaceans, JAPAN, supported by NORWAY, rejected a statement
reflecting that the Committeepassed this draft fully
reflecting existing resolutions on cetaceans. The US said the
language, including a reservation by Asia (Japan), is
accurate. The report was approved.
Animals Committee: Chair Robert Jenkins (Australia)
presented the Committee’s report (Doc. 11.11.1). He
underlined its COP-11 recommendation repealing a resolution
concerning swiftlets as the scientific research for its
implementation is complete and the recommendation repealing a
resolution regarding the international trade in sharks. He
also noted the difficulties in compiling a specimens list of
animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes and
recommended listing species of critical conservation concern.
JAPAN noted consultative work between the Committee and FAO on
the international plan of action for the conservation and
management of sharks.
Plants Committee: Chair Margarita Clemente (Spain)
presented the Committee’s report outlining activities since
COP-10 (Doc. 11.11.2). She drew attention to increased
observer participation during their eighth and ninth meetings.
She highlighted the preparation of standardized regional
reporting formats and the identification of problems
encountered by regional representatives. Since many of the
25,000 Appendix II species were listed in 1970s, the committee
introduced an ongoing systematic review of the Appendix. She
noted that an identification manual and slides had been sent
to Parties to assist them in identifying CITES species.
Regarding the work programme through COP-12, she highlighted, inter
alia, the need to implement the action plan; continue the
review of Appendix II; and improve regional directories. The
report was adopted.
Identification Manual Committee: Chair Ruth Landolt
(Switzerland) presented the Committee’s report (Doc.
11.11.13). She noted that since COP-10 only Switzerland had
expressed interest in and appointed members to the Committee,
and that input had been received from only six countries
submitting fauna data. The report was adopted.
Nomenclature Committee: Vice-Chair Marinus Hoogmoed
identified the role of the Committee, including: responding to
enquiries on taxa nomenclature, designating appropriate
taxonomic authorities; reviewing the nomenclature with the
Secretariat and reviewing the nomenclature of species proposed
for listing. He said the Fauna Subcommittee had reached
consensus on the spider genus. The Flora Subcommittee
established checklists for Parties, such as the second
cactaceae checklist published last year. SWITZERLAND expressed
concern that the change in nomenclature of the Tupinambis
(Doc. 22.214.171.124) would create confusion with previous
terminology. Delegates adopted the report of the Nomenclature
Committee (Doc. 126.96.36.199).
Robert Jenkins (Australia), on behalf of the Animals and
Plants Committees, presented the terms of reference (TORs) for
the review of the criteria for amendment of Appendices I and
II (Doc.11.25). The review includes, inter alia, taxa
selection based on the review of Appendices and the creation
of a criteria working group of 12 experts. He called for
synergies with FAO and the International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO). Supporting FAO participation, JAPAN hoped
it would bring valuable marine wildlife expertise. MALAYSIA
suggested the working group remain open to observers. SAINT
LUCIA recommended, and many supported Jenkins serve as
criteria working group chair. FAO said its fisheries
department is currently reviewing CITES criteria for aquatic
populations, especially marine populations undergoing
Recommendations for quotas of the Appendix I-listed Leopard
(Doc. 11.28.1.rev.1) were introduced by the Secretariat.
Parties were invited to suggest recommendations on the current
reporting system, as the reports submitted do not adequately
reflect the level of quota management in some exporting
countries. On recommendations for quotas for the Appendix
I-listed Markhor (Doc. 11.28.2), he noted that due to the high
burden of surveying Pakistan’s population annually, less
frequent reporting would be acceptable. PAKISTAN emphasized
the importance of involving the local community in Markhor
conservation. ISRAEL suggested surveying Markhor populations
during a time of climate stress. The Committee adopted the
On tiger conservation, John Sellar, CITES Enforcement
Officer, introduced the report of the CITES Tiger Mission
Technical Team and Political Mission to India, Japan and China
(Doc. 11.30). INDIA disagreed with the report’s partiality
and called for a working group to re-examine recommendations
of trade sanctions issued against India.
Secretary-General Wijnstekers noted future assistance to
India would be "in kind." The US opposed the use of
trade sanctions and suggested an ongoing dialogue with range
states to assess progress and report to COP-12. INDIA lamented
the lack of financial resources for wildlife conservation from
developed countries. ISRAEL noted trade sanctions had never
been used in this context. The RANTHAMBHORE FOUNDATION called
for participation of a higher level of expertise in the CITES
enforcement review process. Chair Clemente suggested the US
chair a working group to discuss this issue together with
India, Canada, China and Israel.
Chair Veit Koester (Denmark) appealed for disciplined input
and said he would use an open and transparent approach. The
Secretariat introduced proposals to change the TORs of CITES’
Committees (Doc. 11.13) mandated by the Standing Committee,
taking into account all discussions held since COP-6 in 1987.
The proposals harmonize differences in the Plants and
Animals Committees’ TORs, translate the TORs into draft
decisions (Annex III) and recommend removing the
Identification Manual Committee. Delegates adopted most of the
The Committee: adopted open-ended observer representation
in the Plants and Animals Committees; permitted Chairs to
invite observers; and granted three and four regional
representatives for regions with a membership of 35-45
countries and over 45 countries respectively. A working group
was established to deal with outstanding issues, including
whether to eliminate the Nomenclature Committee and the need
for guidelines on a code of conduct addressing conflicts of
interest involving persons serving on CITES bodies.
On the relationship between CITES and the International
Whaling Commission (IWC), NORWAY and JAPAN introduced a
resolution (Doc 11. 15.1) that: resolves amendment to
Appendices should be based on CITES' criteria; urges Parties
to apply CITES' provisions for international trade; and
requests cooperation with the IWC's Scientific Committee.
Recalling the IWC was established in 1946 to ensure
development of the whaling industry, he said it currently
violates its original legal framework. The US introduced a
resolution endorsing synergy between CITES and the IWC (Doc.
The IWC said a management scheme for sustainable commercial
whaling is under way. Regarding proposals to downlist Gray and
Minke Whales, he said such action could negatively impact
whale conservation. ANTIGUA and BARBUDA urged CITES to divorce
itself from the IWC. ICELAND opposed giving authority to the
IWC. SAINT LUCIA requested the IWC to lower its membership
Several delegations, including the EU, NEW ZEALAND,
GERMANY, BRAZIL and MEXICO, underscored the IWC's primacy.
AUSTRALIA and the INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE COALITION recalled
CITES’ obligation to cooperate with other international
bodies. The US offered to withdraw its proposal provided
Norway and Japan would also withdraw. NORWAY opposed and the
resolution remains under consideration.
The US introduced a document on synergy with the FAO (Doc.
11.14), and highlighted the FAO’s Plan of Action on sharks.
Some delegates and international organizations welcomed the
cooperation, while others, including Japan, Argentina and Olde
Pesca, opposed it, claiming duplication with the International
Law of the Sea and limited expertise within FAO on some
issues. Chair Koester requested the US to provide a proposal
on the way forward, possibly recognizing the report.
The Budget Committee, attended by one developing country,
discussed the 2001-2002 budget (Doc. 11.10.3.rev.1). Chair
Kenneth Stansell (United States) explained the budget is 13%
higher than the estimates agreed upon at COP-10 due to
increased Secretariat activities. Deputy Secretary-General
Armstrong said the increase is due to new staff posts approved
by the SC, which will be funded from the CITES Trust Fund and
not require additional contributions from the Parties during
The Secretariat indicated that projections for the next
triennium budget 2003-2005 would result in a 56% increase in
Party contributions. Delegates expressed concern over the
Secretariatï¿½s proposals, in particular the decrease in
reserves while the budget increases. To facilitate discussions
of the next Budget Committee meeting on Friday morning,
delegates requested the Secretariat to: identify priority
programme areas for 2001-2002; prepare a document that lists
all information generated from COP-11 proposals; isolate
project-type programmes that can be funded independently; and
explore a 6% annual increase.
IN THE BREEZEWAYS
The polarized discussion on CITES relationship with the IWC
may have set the stage for acrimonious whale debates to come.
Some delegates intimate that efforts to weaken the
relationship between the organizations are designed to cajole
CITES into weakening its stance on whales and at intimidating
the IWC into doing likewise. Some suggest the IWC whale
monitoring system under development could possibly bridge pro-
and anti-whaling positions. Others worry that oversights
within such a system and any allowance of commercial whaling
could encourage poaching and result in the demise of currently
healthy populations. Iceland's announcement of its stance
against "emotional and moral factors" playing into
CITES left many surprised, given its domestic whaling
moratorium and their bourgeoning whale watching industry. Some
speculate that the downlisting battle could go either way at
this point, with "negotiation fatigue" taking a