CITES CoP16 Digest - Species Survival Network

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DOCUMENT BACKGROUND / CURRENT STATUS EFFECT OF DOCUMENT SSN VIEW 48 Continued ate a section on the CITES Website to publish good practice experiences related to CITES and livelihoods in order to make them accessible to interested Parties and stakeholders. • Provides: • steps to rapidly assess the impact of implementation of CITES listings on livelihoods of poor rural communities (Annex 3), extracted from the toolkit; and • key elements of the “Nazca Guidelines” to address impacts of implementing CITES-listing decisions on livelihoods of poor rural communities (Annex 4). Continued beyond its remit and will detract from more essential Secretariat functions; • directing importing countries to assess implementation in exporting countries for purposes beyond those directly related to the Convention; • directing the SC to review implementation of the Resolution on livelihoods and to continue the operation of its WG on CITES and Livelihoods. Work on this issue should be considered completed once the toolkit and guidelines are finalized by the SC. There is no need for CITES to monitor progress of measures taken independently by Parties on poverty issues. Toolkit and Guidelines • SSN urges Parties to extend Decision 15.5 until the SC approves the documents. • SSN urges Parties to oppose publication on the CITES website of the toolkit or the Nazca Guidelines until they been endorsed by the SC, as required by Decision 15.5. • Regarding the Nazca Guidelines, SSN urges Parties to reject inclusion of language suggesting that Parties: • “consider postponing the effective date of CITES listings to allow time for the development of strategies to mitigate any negative effects”; the Convention states that listings come into effect 90 days after adoption; • “prevent economically poor rural communities from being deprived of benefits due to the development of ex situ production that does not provide for benefit-sharing”; this is a domestic matter outside the CITES mandate, and will have no effect on ex situ production in other Parties; • “eliminate barriers to in situ production systems and promote the development of these systems”; CITES has no mandate to promote trade or wildlife use; and • “ensure that consumer countries work with in situ and ex situ traders and trade associations to foster positive effects and minimize any negative impact”; this is a domestic matter outside the CITES mandate; this should remain voluntary (the draft Resolution already states that consumer countries “may” work with such bodies). 20. Wildlife Trade Policy Reviews Cop16 Doc. 20 • RC 15.2 on Wildlife trade policy reviews invites exporting and importing Parties to carry out, on a voluntary basis, reviews of wildlife policy on use of and trade in specimens of CITES-listed species, taking into account environmental, social and economic issues and relevant policy instruments, in order to facilitate a better understanding of effects of wildlife trade policies on the international wildlife trade. • Decision 15.8 directs Secretariat to report at SC62 and CoP16 on progress made on implementation of RC 15.2. • Reports on the progress of policy reviews by a number of Parties, and on work on this issue carried out by Secretariat. • Provides draft Decisions (Annex 1) that, inter alia: • direct Parties that undertake wildlife trade policy reviews to provide details to the Secretariat; and • direct Secretariat to assist Parties undertaking wildlife trade policy reviews, publish reviews on the CITES website, organize a regional or subregional workshop on reviews, and report to SC66 and CoP17 on progress made in implementing RC 15.2. OPPOSE • SSN urges Parties to reject the proposed Decisions directing the Secretariat to undertake further work on this issue: • this is ranked as a low priority activity for the Secretariat (SC62 Doc. 9.2 Annex); and • a cost-benefit analysis of alternative regulatory regimes is outside the remit of CITES. • SSN has a number of concerns about the framework in Annex 2, but, as this document is not being presented for adoption by the CoP, we will not air them here. However, Continued Continued Continued
DOCUMENT BACKGROUND / CURRENT STATUS EFFECT OF DOCUMENT SSN VIEW Continued Continued Continued • At SC62, Secretariat introduced orally a proposed “framework for national wildlife trade policy reviews” which has not been reviewed or approved by the SC; this was prepared as a joint project among UNEP, United Nations Conference for Policy and Development, the CITES Secretariat and the University of Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. • States that “there is scope for using future wildlife trade policy reviews to build on earlier work done by Secretariat to develop draft terms of reference for a cost-benefit analysis of alternative regulatory regimes to govern wildlife trade”. • Recommends deletion of Decision 15.8. • Provides a “framework for reviewing wildlife trade policies” (Annex 2). SSN is very concerned that the Secretariat has apparently devoted considerable time and resources to the preparation of this framework without any specific direction from the Parties to do so, especially considering that the CoP has ranked this issue is a low priority activity. We urge the Parties to insist that, in future, work of this scope and nature not be embarked upon by the Secretariat without such direction. 21. Capacity-building Cop16 Doc. 21 • Decisions 14.12 and 14.13 direct Secretariat to seek external funding to operate CITES Virtual College and to produce capacity-building tools in six U.N. languages. • Decisions 15.21 and 15.22 direct Secretariat to seek funding to convene a capacity-building workshop and regional meeting for Oceania and Africa regions before SC62. • The capacity-building Goal and Objective of the CITES Strategic Vision (RC 14.2) are: • Goal 1 (“ensure compliance with and implementation and enforcement of the convention”); and • Objective 1.8 (“Parties and the Secretariat have adequate capacity-building programmes in place”). • Reports on recent capacity-building activities, CITES Virtual College, and the European Commission-funded (US$3,512,500) project of the CITES Secretariat on Strengthening the CITES implementation capacity of developing countries to ensure sustainable wildlife management and non-detrimental trade. • Reports that Secretariat “has developed a draft framework to ensure that its capacity-building activities … support the capacity-building Goal and Objective of” RC. 14.2. • Recommends repealing Decisions 14.12, 14.13, 15.21 and 15.22. • Provides two draft Decisions for adoption which, inter alia: • urge Parties to support and provide resources for capacity-building activities, “particularly those in support of Goals 1 and 3 of the Strategic Vision”; • direct Secretariat to: • undertake a review of capacity-building activities found in Resolutions and Decisions to assess whether and how they could be rationalized and consolidated, and report its recommendations at SC66 for possible submission of a draft Resolution on capacity-building at CoP17; • collaborate with AC and PC on relevant capacitybuilding activities; • “within the mandate of Goals 1 and 3 of the Strategic Vision, provide targeted capacity-building support to CITES Management and Scientific Authorities, Customs and law enforcement entities, the judiciary, legislators and other stakeholders”; and SUPPORT IN PART / OPPOSE IN PART • SSN recommends that Parties approve the draft Decisions proposed, with the following amendments: • delete references to Strategic Vision Goal 3 (“Contribute to significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by ensuring that CITES and other multilateral instruments and processes are coherent and mutually supportive”), which could direct capacitybuilding funds to low-priority activities unrelated to implementation and enforcement; and • delete direction to the Secretariat to “rationalize” capacity-building activities found in Resolutions and Decisions and instead make clear that the aim of the review is to improve capacity-building efforts of the Secretariat rather than question the validity of or need for capacity-building work agreed to by Parties in Decisions or Resolutions. • SSN recommends that Parties direct SC to: provide recommendations on the draft framework prepared by Secretariat, and on proposals or reviews regarding capacity-building developed by Secretariat, including any draft Resolution developed for CoP17; and ensure the full participation of developing countries in formulation of any recommendations. • SSN is concerned that one objective of the EC-funded CITES Secretariat project—“to improve the livelihoods of rural poor”— is not an objective of CITES. The project is not subject to review or oversight by the Parties or Committees. Activities under this project include assisting Parties in achieving the lifting of EU and CITES trade suspensions. This is wholly inappropriate; while Parties should be assisted in meeting recommendations resulting Continued Continued www.ssn.org 49
Page 1 and 2: SPECIES PROPOSALS Pages 1-37 WORKIN
Page 3 and 4: Analysis of the Proposals to Amend
Page 5 and 6: SPECIES/PROPONENT/PROPOSAL CURRENT
Page 41 and 42: DOCUMENT BACKGROUND / CURRENT STATU
Page 49: DOCUMENT BACKGROUND / CURRENT STATU
Page 55 and 56: DOCUMENT EFFECT OF DOCUMENT SSN VIE
Page 91 and 92: NOTES The Species Survival Network
Page 93: SPECIES SURVIVAL NETWORK 2100 L Str

CITES CoP16 Digest - Species Survival Network

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?