Reprinted in part from:

Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

The twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP-12) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) convened from 3-15 November 2002, in Santiago, Chile, drawing together approximately 1,200 participants representing governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. Delegates at COP-12 considered 60 proposals and over 60 resolutions on a range of topics, including, inter alia, strategic and administrative matters, implementation of the Convention, and consideration of proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II.

Delegates’ assessments of COP-12 were mixed. Many applauded the listing of seahorses, basking and whale sharks, and Bigleaf mahogany, and rejection of the proposals to downlist populations of minke and Bryde’s whales, but also expressed disappointment with the withdrawal of a listing proposal for the Patagonian toothfish. Results on elephants were divided, with some in favor of a restricted one-off ivory sale, while others supported an Appendix I listing. As with previous COPs, the outcomes reflected the underlying conflicts within CITES between balancing conservation and trade.

COMMITTEE REPORTS: Animals Committee: On Monday, 4 November, Animals Committee Chair Marinus Hoogmoed (the Netherlands) presented the Committee’s report (Doc.10.1). He noted the lack of progress in implementing the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).

CONSERVATION OF SHARKS: On Wednesday, 13 November, Australia introduced in Committee I its draft resolution, jointly prepared with Ecuador, on the role of CITES in implementing the International Plan of Action on the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks) (Doc.12.41.2 Addendum). Delegates voted via secret ballot on the proposal with minor amendments, and it was approved with 63 in favor, 28 against and 13 abstentions. On Thursday, 14 November, the Plenary adopted the final resolution on the role of CITES in the implementation of the IPOA-Sharks (Doc.12.41.2 Addendum Annex), which: instructs the CITES Secretariat to raise concerns with FAO regarding the significant lack of progress in IPOA implementation; urges FAO to take steps to actively encourage relevant States to develop National Plans of Action; directs the Animals Committee to review progress towards IPOA implementation; and requests Management Authorities to collaborate with their national customs authorities.

Whale Shark: On Tuesday, 12 November, the Philippines introduced its joint proposal with India on including Rhincodon typus in Appendix II (Prop.12.35). She stressed that: IUCN classifies the species as vulnerable; its biggest threat is international trade; and it provides revenue to local communities through ecotourism. The EU and many others supported the proposal, stressing that the species meets Appendix II criteria, CITES has been successful in protecting other marine species; and ecotourism is important. Others opposed the proposal, stating that FAO is the more competent body to deal with marine species, and highlighted a lack of catch and trade data. Iceland stressed that the shark is largely caught as bycatch and a CITES listing will have no effect. In a secret ballot, the proposal failed to obtain the two-thirds majority of 64, with 62 in favor, 34 against and 9 abstentions. On Friday, 15 November, the Philippines reopened discussion in Plenary and Plenary voted on the proposal. With 81 in favor and 37 against, it obtained the qualified majority of 79 and was adopted.

Basking Shark: On Wednesday, 13 November, the UK introduced an EU proposal to include Cetorhinus maximus in Appendix II (Prop. 12.36). He stressed the species’ decline from overfishing and trade and the lack of an effective management system. Tunisia and others supported the proposal, while Norway and others opposed, pointing to the needs of local fishermen and identification problems. In a secret ballot, with 72 in favor, 38 against, and 2 abstentions, the proposal failed to reach the qualified majority of 74 in Committee I. On Friday, 15 November, the UK reopened discussion in Plenary, and Plenary voted on the proposal. With 82 in favor and 36 against, the proposal obtained the qualified majority of 79 and was adopted.