SUMMARY RECORDS

14th Meeting of the Animals Committee

CARACAS, VENEZUELA

25 to 29 May 1998

---

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Agenda item 1
Opening Address and Welcome to Delegates ... 2
Agenda item 2

Adoption of Provisional Agenda and Working Programme ... 2
Agenda item 3
Admission of Observers... 2, 5
Agenda item 4
Adoption of Summary Record of the 13th Meeting of the Animals Committee ... 2
Agenda item 5
Adoption of the Rules of Procedure for the Animals Committee ... 3
Agenda item 6
Implementation of Resolution Conf. 10.21 on Transport of Live Animals ... 17
Agenda item 7
Review Progress on the Implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17

on the Status of International Trade in Shark Species ... 5, 13
Agenda item 8
Implementation of Decision 10.78 on Universal Tagging

System for the Identification of Crocodilian Skins ... 3
Agenda item 9
Implementation of Decision 10.77, Regarding Specimens of

Animal Species Bred in Captivity ... 14, 22
Agenda item 10
Implementation of Decisions 10.75 and 10.76 regarding Trade in Alien Species ... 6
Agenda item 11
Implementation of Decision 10.82 on Trade in Animal Species Used in Traditional Medicines ... 20
Agenda item 12
Development of Uniform Marking System for Specimens of Sturgeons ... 14
Agenda item 13
Ranching and Trade in Ranched Specimens - Resolution Conf. 10.18 ... 5
Agenda item 14
Review of Significant Trade in Species of Animals Included in CITES Appendix II (Implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9) ... 7, 8, 15, 24
Agenda item 15
Review of the Use of Coded-microchip Implants for Marking Live Animals in Trade and Implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.13 ... 19
Agenda item 16
Regular Review of Animals Taxa Included in the Appendices - Resolution Conf. 9.24 ... 21
Agenda item 17
Conservation and Use of Lampropeltis spp. in Central America ... 21
Agenda item 18
Regional Management of Marine Turtles ...(Withdrawn)
Agenda item 19
Conservation and Management of Collocalia spp ...17
Agenda item 20
Guidelines for Scientific Authorities - Resolution Conf. 10.3 ... 3
Agenda item 21
Guidelines for Trophy Hunting Quotas Involving Appendix-I Species ... (Withdrawn)
Agenda item 22
Other Business ... 24, 25
Agenda item 23
Date and Venue of Next Meeting ... 26

 
Annex 1
- Working Group - Review of Significant Trade in Species of Animals Included

in CITES Appendix II ... 29

- Working Group - Issues Relating to Specimens Bred in Captivity ... 33
Annex 2a
Membership Working Group on Captive Breeding ... 35
Annex 2b
Membership Working Group on Marking (live animals) ... 37
Annex 2c
Membership Working Group on Transport ... 39
Annex 3
Actions Arising from AC14 ... 41
Annex 4
Speech of Minister of Environment of Venezuela ...45
Annex 5
List of Participants ... 47

CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
____________
 
Fourteenth Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee
Caracas (Venezuela), 25 to 29 May 1998

SUMMARY RECORDS

---

First Session: Monday 25 May 1998, 10h00-12h00

1. Welcome (Agenda item 1)

The meeting was opened with a speech by the Chairman who expressed thanks on behalf of all participants in the meeting to the Minister of MARNR for hosting the meeting and for the arrangements made by PROFAUNA.

The Minister, Rafael Martínez Monro, welcomed all participants. His speech is at Annex 4 to this summary report.

2. Closed Session of the Animals Committee

(Refer to separate summary)

Second Session: Monday 25 May 1998, 14h00-16h45

3. Adoption of Agenda and Working Programme (Agenda item 2)

The Chairman advised that, following discussions in the closed session the Provisional Agenda had been revised taking into account that agenda item 18 (Regional Management of Marine Turtles) and 21 (Guidelines for Trophy Hunting Quotas Involving Appendix-I Species) had been deleted. The Working Programme was revised accordingly to accommodate the new order of business.

The Chairman called for items for consideration under Other Business. The inclusion of the following items was put forward and accepted.

The revised provisional agenda and working programme, with the foregoing items included under "Other Business" were adopted.

4. Admission of Observers (Agenda item 3)

As the relevant papers were not available, the Chairman advised that this matter would be dealt with later in the session.

5. Adoption of Summary Records of 13th meeting of the Animals Committee (Agenda item 4)

The Chairman stated that there was little point in maintaining this item as a standing agenda item because that agreed Summary Record was circulated to the Parties and participants in the meeting of the Animals Committee.

The observer from Zimbabwe pointed out that at both the 12th meeting and 13th meetings of the Committee he had requested that a plain language guide to the implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9 be made available and that this matter had not been reported in the Summary Record. The Secretariat advised that it intended to produce a draft guide for the next meeting of the Animals Committee. The observer from Zimbabwe requested that other organizations, such as IUCN, be involved in the preparation of the draft. The Committee agreed noting that Committee members would be consulted in the preparation of the draft guide.

There was also a discussion of the involvement of regional representatives, and the need for regional representatives to consult with countries in their region. It was agreed by the Committee that regional representatives consult countries in their region before putting matter on the AC agenda.

There was also discussion of the utility of further discussing the Conf. 8.9/significant trade process. The regional representative for North America recommended an evening forum discussion at the next meeting of the Animals Committee, to discuss significant trade and the making of non-detriment findings by scientific authorities. The Committee agreed to hold such a forum, and recommended that a Notification be sent by the Secretariat prior to the meeting inviting papers and discussion items on these issues.

6. Adoption of the Rules of Procedure (Agenda item 5)

The Chairman advised that the Committee had agreed to adopt the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Standing Committee at its 40th meeting, in March 1998 (Doc. AC14.5 Annex 4). The Chairman advised that the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties would apply in relation to seating arrangements and interventions by observers.

{NOTE: the Rules of Procedure were discussed in closed session where it was agreed that a uniform set of procedures should apply for both Animals Committee and Plants Committee}

7. Guidelines for Scientific Authorities (Agenda item 20)

The Secretariat introduced document Doc. AC.14.20 and added that three additional countries, Cambodia, Saudi Arabia and Myanmar, had not designated Scientific Authorities and should be added to those countries listed in paragraph 5.

There was extensive debate on the interpretation of the term "independent" as used in Resolution Conf. 10.3 in paragraph a) under Recommendations. The observer from New Zealand drew attention to the limited capacity of smaller nations (particularly possible future Parties among small island States) to establish separate Scientific and Management Authorities. There was consensus that the person(s) issuing permits should not be the same as the person(s) deciding on non-detriment, and that there must be independent decision-making. The observer from IUCN outlined the current activities being undertaken to develop capacity building workshops including field operations. They had consulted the Secretariat. It was agreed that IUCN should report on progress at the next meeting of the Animals Committee.

It was agreed that the text presented by the observer from the European Commission provided useful guidance regarding the independence of a Scientific Authority, namely: "the designated Scientific Authority shall have appropriate qualifications and their duties shall be separate from those of the designated Management Authority".

8. Implementation of Decision 10.78 on Universal Tagging System for the Identification of Crocodilian Skins (Agenda item8)

The Chairman referred participants to document Doc. AC.14.8 and stated that this document represented an effort to complete the implementation of a practical crocodile tagging system. He stated that the document had been developed with the input of several Parties and the IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group.

The observer from the United States of America recommended a change to the wording in the operative part of Resolution Conf. 9.22 cited on page 4 so that it should read "...legitimately taken skins are tagged in accordance with the requirements of the issuing Management Authority." The basis for this proposed change was that in the United States of America skins were not presented to the Management Authority until the time of export. The observer from Germany expressed support for the recommendations in document Doc. AC.14.8 with the alternative wording and stated that the Parties should not forget the provisions of Resolution Conf. 6.17 in the implementation of crocodile tagging. The observer from Zimbabwe urged caution in adoption of the change proposed by the observer from the United States of America because the original wording had been derived from the experiences of the Parties and had the purpose of ensuring that quotas were not exceeded. He also noted that this would not pertain to the United States of America because their exports were not subject to quotas established by the Conference of the Parties.

Regarding paragraph b) of Resolution Conf. 9.22, Ms Mirna Quero de Peña (regional representative for Central and South America and the Caribbean) stated an objection to the requirement to have tags marked with the year of export. She stated that it would be more practical to have the tags marked with the year of harvest, because specimens might not be exported in the year of harvest. The Chairman noted that quotas for caiman in Venezuela were developed by the Management Authority in consultation with the Scientific Authority and, because paragraph b) only applies to Appendix-I species, it does not apply to caiman skins exported from Venezuela. The representative of North America suggested that the text reflect the differing political structures of the Parties (for example, the federal system in the United States of America where harvest is managed by states, but export is regulated by the federal government). The Chairman advised that the term "Party" allows interpretation to obviate the need to specify responsibilities of different levels of government within a Party. The observer from Zimbabwe believed that the procedures of Resolution Conf. 6.17 applied to Appendix-II species, not to Appendix-I species. The Chairman asked the Secretariat for a clarification, and the Secretariat expressed agreement with the observer from Zimbabwe.

The observer from IWMC suggested several changes. He suggested that the preambular paragraph on page 3 of document Doc. AC.14.8 should read "...certain populations of crocodilians..." and should not refer to only Crocodylus niloticus and C. porosus. Second, at the top of page 3, under "Recommended Action", the requirement to report the size of skins exported should be deleted, because Parties do not report this information. Third, on page 4, top paragraph, regarding the issue of whether tags should be marked with year of harvest or year of export, he noted that CITES deals with export, not harvest. Finally, he suggested that perhaps instead of marking tags with either the year of harvest or year of export, the Parties could report the numbers of tags (numbers beginning and ending the annual series) used within a year. The observer from the IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group reminded participants that the existing resolutions had been very successful. Parties have adopted tagging systems that are operating well, with sufficient flexibility. He therefore favoured making only minor changes, but retaining the resolution relatively intact. The Chairman agreed.

The observer from the Born Free Foundation stated that there were software packages available for managing commodities, and that such software might be useful for administering skin-tagging programmes. He offered the assistance of the NGO community in studying the potential application of these softwares to skin-tagging programmes, including the preparation of a report for the Committee.

The observer from the National University of Costa Rica expressed the need to register producers and primary processors, but disagreed with discontinuing registration of exporters. Rather, to maintain a precautionary approach, he suggested registering producers and primary processors as well as exporters. Later perhaps the Parties could consider eliminating the registration of exporters. For now, he expressed concern about the proliferation of small entities involved in the trade and the possible loss of control if exporters were not registered. He also suggested a rewording in the proposed preambular amendment on page 3: The end of the last sentence should read, "...not detrimental to the survival of these wild populations."

The Chairman requested the observer from the IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group to co-ordinate the various contributions during the discussion and construct a revised draft resolution to take account of the recommended amendments. He asked the observer from Zimbabwe to provide suggested revisions to Resolution Conf. 9.22 in writing to the IUCN representative. He also recommended that the observer from the Born Free Foundation discuss his offer regarding software with the IUCN/SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. The revised draft resolution would be considered further by the 15th meeting of the Committee.

9. Admission of Observers (Agenda item 3)

The Chairman referred the Committee and Party observers to document Doc. AC.14.3, which contains the list of observers. There being no objections from the representatives of Parties, all organizations listed in the document were formally admitted. A list of participants is at Annex 5.

10. Ranching and Trade in Ranched Specimens (Agenda item 13)

The Chairman referred to document Doc. AC.14.13 and noted that this issue had been referred to the Animals Committee by the Conference of the Parties because of confusion surrounding the efforts at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to repeal Resolution Conf. 5.16 (Rev). He further noted that the Secretariat, in accordance with the procedure agreed by the Conference of the Parties, had drafted Resolution Conf. 10.18 to consolidate existing resolutions related to ranching. Document Doc. AC.14.13 was designed to initiate the repeal of Resolution Conf. 5.16 (Rev.) (which contained the texts not included in the consolidation) and to further clarify the term "ranching".

The observer from Germany expressed his appreciation for the effort reflected in the document, and agreed that parts of Resolution Conf. 5.16 (Rev.) that are never used should be repealed. However, he recommended that the definition of ranching, as it appears in Resolution Conf. 10.18, should be retained as there had been no problem with this definition. The Chairman agreed that the existing definition should be retained if there was consensus as to its applicability. The observer from Zimbabwe advised that the Parties should be careful in consolidating resolutions and generalised approaches to problems. He stated that the strength of CITES had been that specific recommendations applicable to specific taxa had been developed. Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) also supported retention of the current definition of ranching. The Chairman acknowledged that there appeared to be consensus on keeping the current definition of ranching.

The observer from the United States of America stated that document Doc. AC.14.13 appeared to treat non-Parties preferentially to Parties and any revision should contain text to require non-Parties to comply with the recommendations of the Conference of the Parties when trading with Parties. She also recommended that the current sections on crocodilians from Resolution Conf. 8.22 be retained but made generic so that they are applicable across taxa. The Chairman agreed with the recommended changes and undertook to present a revised resolution for consideration by the Committee at its next meeting.

The session was closed at 17h30.

Third Session: 26 May 1998: 09h00 - 12h00

11. Review progress on the Implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17 on the Status of International Trade in Sharks (Agenda item 7)

The Chairman offered the floor to the observer from FAO (Venezuela). The observer advised that he had been asked by FAO headquarters to seek opinions from the Animals Committee and interested Parties, for a preparatory meeting from 22-24 July, in preparation for a meeting in Rome (26-30 October 1998) where the adoption of an Action Plan for Sharks would be considered.

Discussion of this agenda item was suspended as a number of participants had not received copies of the relevant documents.

12. Implementation of Decisions 10.75 and 10.76 Regarding Trade in Alien Species (Agenda item 10)

The Chairman described the work that had been done since the 10th meeting of the Conference of Parties as a result of Decisions 10.75 and 10.76. The decisions were directed at both the Animals and Plants Committees. The Chairman had consulted with the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group on issues of mutual interest, including the draft IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss due to Biological Invasions.

The observer from New Zealand introduced document Doc. AC.14.10. New Zealand had been a co-sponsor, with the United States of America and Argentina, of the document on this subject produced for the 10^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The observer from New Zealand saw the decisions of the Conference as providing an opportunity for greater collaboration between CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity, with CITES having the potential to be a vehicle whereby some of the aims of the CBD could be achieved.

The observer from New Zealand sought the Animal Committee's opinion on three matters in particular:

1. endorsement of continued liaison on this issue;

2. explanation of how a database on invasive species might be useful to Parties; and

3. input into the guidelines prepared by IUCN/SSC.

The observer from IUCN explained that the subject of invasive species had been identified as one of five priority work programmes of IUCN. A workshop earlier in the year had produced a work programme that included initially the preparation of guidelines and in later stages capacity building and training for Customs and enforcement authorities on how to deal with invasive species. IUCN would keep the Animals Committee informed about developments, in order to facilitate potential collaboration.

The Chairman noted that there was general agreement on the importance of the subject and requested the Secretariat to circulate a Notification to Parties on the subject of invasive species. It should be prepared in collaboration with the Chairman of the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. The notification should include a request to Parties and regional representatives to provide information on experiences with known invasive species and to identify potential invasive species included in the appendices.

In the discussion, it was noted by several observers including the observers from Zimbabwe and the International Wildlife Coalition, that it was generally difficult to predict whether a species had the potential to become invasive. The observer from New Zealand explained that there were occasions when it could be predicted that a species would be invasive; he gave the example of deer. He was, however, in general agreement that prediction was difficult and emphasized that the aim of the paper was not to produce a `predictive model` but to encourage networking.

The observer from the Dominican Republic requested that IUCN/SSC, the Animals Committee and other technical groups should pay particular attention to small island States that face various problems, in particular the lack of legal mechanisms to cope with economic pressures arising from issues such as invasive species.

The observer from IWMC expressed concern about the relevance of CITES to invasive species. He identified Article XIV, paragraph 1, as the only provision that could valuably be used, since it provided the possibility to take stricter measures. He noted that when specimens escaped and became invasive, this was more likely to be after import than during transport.

There was extremely wide support for this topic, and an excellent discussion ensued, with supportive interventions advocating action from: Argentina, New Zealand, the United States of America, Chile, Australia, Bahamas, Guatemala, Dominican Republic and numerous NGOs. Argentina (as both an exporting and importing country) stressed the need for exporting countries to show "responsibility" and not export invasive species. Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) and the observer from Zimbabwe both stated that the document should be modified, and language struck that says that CITES-listed species do not tend to be invasive, as that is not the case. The Committee agreed.

The Secretariat voiced concern about a potential increase in its workload; in response, the Chairman explained that the Committee wished the Secretariat only to collate responses to the notification and send these to the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN/SSC was requested to report back to the 15th meeting of the Animals Committee on progress.

13. Review of Significant Trade in Species of Animals Included in CITES Appendix II (Implementation of Resolution Conf 8.9) (Agenda item 14)

The Chairman introduced this Agenda item and said that it would be a topic for discussion in a working group that would be charged with reconsidering species considered in phases 1 and 2 and identifying potential phase IV species for consideration by the Animals Committee. At its 10th meeting, the Conference of Parties had instructed the Animals Committee to consider sturgeon species in the review of significant trade and they would therefore be on the list of species to be considered in phase IV.

The observer from Zimbabwe requested that the working group also be given the task of examining the whole process of the implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (i.e. the review of significant trade).

The Secretariat noted that, at the 13th meeting of the Animals Committee, it had been agreed that recommendations on hard corals would be formulated once a final report had been submitted by TRAFFIC-USA. The Secretariat said that it had not received the report, but the observer from TRAFFIC-USA stated that it had been sent late in 1997. The Chairman asked for this to be clarified after the session.

The Secretariat introduced document Doc. AC.14.14.2 on the current status of action on species considered in phase III. It was explained that this document was an update of the report submitted by the Secretariat to the 13th meeting of the Animals Committee and to the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

Benin - Chamaeleo gracilis

Canada -Monodon monoceros

Côte d'Ivoire- Poicephalus gulielmi

Ethiopia -Chlorocebus aethiops

The Chairman closed the session at 12h00.

Fourth Session, 26 May 1998: 14h00 - 17h45

14. Review of Significant Trade in Species of Animals Included in Appendix II (Agenda item 14) (continued)

The Chairman opened the session with announcements and turned the meeting over to the Vice-Chairwoman for discussion of "Current Status of Actions on Phase III".

Ghana - Cercopithecus petaurista & Chamaeleo gracilis

Guinea - Poicephalus gulielmi

Mali - Geochelone sulcata

Myanmar - Psittacula finschii

Solomon Islands - Tridacnidae spp & Varanus indicus

Togo - Chamaeleo gracilis

Viet Nam - Psittacula alexandri

Democratic Republic of the Congo - Poicephalus gulielmi

15. Review Progress on the Implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17 on the Status of International Trade in Shark Species (Agenda item 7)

The Chairman asked for the authors to introduce their papers relating to this agenda item. The observers from the United States of America and TRAFFIC outlined their respective papers and the Chairman introduced his report of the FAO Technical Working Group meeting that had been held in Tokyo in April 1998. In response to a request from the Chairman, the observer from WWF-US added the following comments.

There are three points that the Animals Committee should consider as recommendations on which FAO may initiate action:

These elements are contained in both the decisions of COP10 and the recommendations of the FAO Technical Working Group.

The observer from WWF-US also recommended that the Chairman, in his liaison with FAO, under Decisions 10.73 and 10.74, continue to offer the expertise of CITES to FAO to further ensure adequate coverage of the concerns of CITES in the Plan of Action.

The Chairman thanked the observer from WWF-US. He felt the most appropriate course of action would be for him to write to FAO to elaborate on the issues raised by WWF-US and to ask for copies of all draft documents prepared for the October meeting in advance so that relevant input could be provided by the Animals Committee. The Chairman agreed with the observer from the United States of America that this letter should be sent as soon as possible so that essential input could be provided in time for the FAO meeting in October.

Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe) then provided information from the Management Authority of Switzerland regarding controls implemented on trade in shark meat and or shark products.

The observer from the Bahamas advised that they were experiencing problems with poaching of sharks and requested that records of illegal trade in sharks be kept and made available.

There was extensive discussion, with the Committee agreeing that it is important to ensure that international shark trade and the nexus with CITES continue to be discussed in the FAO context (including illegal trade/poaching issues). The Chairman closed the discussion on this agenda item by recommending that the Secretariat notify all Parties of the forthcoming meetings and encourage Parties' Management and Scientific Authorities to collaborate with their relevant fisheries agencies on these matters.

16. Review of the Registration System - Resolution Conf. 8.15 (Agenda item 9)

The Chairman introduced document Doc. AC.14.9.1 and explained that the Animals Committee had been instructed by the Conference of the Parties to re-examine the registration process. Related to this were the issues of defining the term "bred in captivity for commercial purposes" (referred to in Article VII and Decision 10.77) and the criteria for establishing a list of species commonly bred in captivity (Resolution Conf. 10.16). The Chairman stated that a working group would consider these matters the following day. He stressed that the task of the working group was not to construct a list of species but rather it would need to determine the process by which species could be identified for inclusion on the list.

The Vice-Chairwoman, who would be chairing the working group, stressed that, should a species not be included in the list for any reason, it could still be traded as captive-bred.

The Chairman pointed out that the observer from Zimbabwe (Dr John Hutton) would chair the working group dealing with discussion of significant trade (Resolution Conf. 8.9).

17. Development of a Uniform Marking System for Specimens of Sturgeons (Agenda item 12)

It was noted that there were three documents relating to this agenda item, document Doc. AC.14.12, document Doc. AC.14.12.1 and a copy of a letter to the Chairman from the Head of the Russian Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The observer from the Russian Federation advised the Chairman that his country had hosted a meeting to discuss the recent listing of sturgeons in the CITES appendices and that it was their intention to host a second meeting in late 1998 to further progress dialogue on this matter. The observer from the Russian Federation stated that he had been instructed to request the Animals Committee to postpone discussion of this matter until a later date. The Chairman thanked the observer from the Russian Federation for his input but advised that it was not possible to defer this item because of the instruction contained in Resolution Conf. 10.12 which recommends, in paragraph h):

The Chairman pointed out that, of the Caspian Sea range States, only the Russian Federation was represented in the meeting despite all range States having been sent formal invitations to attend. Although the Animals Committee was required to consider this matter, it may not be possible to reach conclusive decisions at this meeting, and continued consultation with all range States would be necessary. Range State involvement, as outlined in Resolution Conf. 10.12, was essential.

The observer from TRAFFIC introduced document Doc. AC.14.12 and added, in relation to the possible use of bar codes, that this may not be possible owing to the need to have specialized equipment for this process. A self-adhesive sticker with text might be a more practical alternative.

The observer from the United States of America outlined the content of their paper (document Doc. AC.14.12.1) which included a proposal of a system for tagging fish, to complement the system that may be developed for products. This marking system would enable individual fish to be tracked in relation to the catch quota. The observer from the United States of America mentioned that they were eager to convene a working group to discuss marking and to report to the next meeting of the Animals Committee.

Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe), read a letter from the Management Authority of Switzerland drawing attention to the many problems that have to be addressed in the control of trade in sturgeon specimens. Several participants pointed out that these topics had already been discussed at the meeting in the Russian Federation.

The Chairman stated that this issue was extremely complex. He particularly compared it with the marking of crocodilians, which had been subject to lengthy discussion for over 10 years and believed that the trade in caviar was likely to be even more complex. He suggested that the Secretariat convene a working group, to further consider this issue, particularly in light of the intention of the Russian Federation to convene a meeting in late 1998. The working group should include range States and principal importing nations. The observers from Germany and the United States of America strongly supported this recommendation. The Secretariat however advised that it did not have the mandate or power to convene working groups. Consequently the Chairman recommended that Animals Committee from a working group involving the Secretariat, for the sole purpose of considering the marking issue.

The observer from the United States of America invited interested individuals, Parties, and the Secretariat to an ad hoc meeting on Thursday evening to discuss several issues pertaining to implementation of the sturgeon listing (including pre-Convention stocks and airline and cruise trade).

The session was closed at 17h45.

Fifth session: 28 May 1998: 09h00 - 12h20

18. Review of Significant Trade in Species of Animals Included in CITES Appendix II (Agenda item 14)

Trade in hard corals

The Chairman opened the session at 09h00, asking the observer from the United States of America to introduce document Doc. AC.14.14.4. After introduction of the document, the Chairman noted that recommendations dealing with coral identification and reporting on coral trade had been referred to the Conference of the Parties on the basis of agreement reached in the Animals Committee, but that controversy had developed at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties over issues that had not been considered by the Committee. The US document also clarified that regional representatives to prior meetings of the Animals Committee had not consulted sufficiently with governments in their region. The Committee agreed that such consultation is vital, particularly when the Committee discusses draft resolutions to be submitted to the Conference of the Parties. Consequently, no agreement was reached at the meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The Secretariat made a plea for interim guidance on how to deal with permits, because many export permits for hard coral were referred to the Secretariat for verification but could not be verified because they did not specify the species being traded but rather the genus or a higher taxon.

Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe) stated that the wording of the document was confusing with respect to what is readily recognizable, the coral gravel and living rock or the species. The observer from the United States of America stated that coral gravel and living rock are recognizable but that the species of coral that they comprise are not necessarily identifiable. Dr Hoogmoed suggested that this was a matter to be dealt with through amendment of the appendices, not through a resolution. The observer from Germany stated that the United States of America had presented a very good document to address this problem and that it should be adopted. The Chairman suggested that the observers from Germany and the United States of America and Dr Hoogmoed should meet in order to suggest an approach to this problem.

The observer from Italy stated that her country had stopped imports of "living rocks" (according to the CITES definition of it) without permit, but the same shipments were still freely entering through other European Union Member States. She urged the adoption of uniform treatment of these shipments among countries. Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) urged the European Union to address the problem described by Italy. She disagreed with Dr Hoogmoed's opinion that the problems with corals should be addressed through amendment of the appendices. Rather, she recommended that, upon return to their respective countries, the observers representing Parties should present the draft resolution from the United States of America to their Management Authorities and return to the next meeting of the Animals Committee with positions on that document. She suggested that if there were agreement on the document at that meeting, it could be submitted to the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties for consideration.

The Secretariat stated that they still needed interim guidance on how to deal with permits referred to them for verification. The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat could use the draft resolution from the United States of America as interim guidance, and meanwhile members of the Committee should consult within their regions to ascertain the level of agreement on the United States' proposal. The Chairman noted that this approach was not intended to bypass the review of significant trade (in accordance with Resolution Conf. 8.9) as it pertains to corals. The Secretariat said it was satisfied with this approach. They noted however that the discussion had focused on Resolution Conf. 9.4 but that the problem was with Resolution Conf. 10.2. The Chairman then repeated his suggestion for the Secretariat to use document Doc. 10.65 as a basis for verifying permits until the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

The observer from the European Commission believed that the suggestion of the Chairman was irregular. The observer from TRAFFIC-International suggested that Resolutions Conf. 9.6 and Conf. 10.2 required amendment. This suggestion was supported by the observer from the IWMC World Conservation Trust, who further suggested that a review of trade in hard corals should include domestic uses as well as international trade. He also suggested that clarification was needed on the quotas established by Indonesia, since those quotas were difficult to track against permits. He suggested that this difficulty would be eliminated if Indonesia stopped reporting quotas to the Secretariat, since they were under no obligation to do so; this recommendation was not endorsed. The Secretariat stated that the difficulties would still exist even if there were no quotas.

The Chairman suspended further discussion on the matter suggesting that the issue be raised during the closed session that was scheduled for the next day. The Chairman then restated his recommendation that regional representatives on the Animals Committee consult the Parties within their regions. He asked that the United States of America to co-ordinate this issue and report back to the Animals Committee at its next meeting. He suggested that the comments of TRAFFIC-International should be considered in relation to proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 10.2.

(Note: During the closed session, the matter was resolved satisfactorily after reviewing the text of Resolution Conf 10.2 and noting the provision that permitted exporting Parties to issue export permits without citing specimens to the species level provided adequate justification for doing so was provided to the Secretariat).

19. Conservation and Management of Collocalia spp. (Agenda item 19)

The Chairman asked Dr Giam (regional representative for Asia) to introduce document Doc. AC.14.19, which was an information document on progress in addressing issues relating to the status of and trade in species of Collocalia. After the presentation of the document, the Chairman stated that this matter represented a good example of how species of concern should be handled and that it should not always be necessary to immediately amend the Appendices for a solution. The Chairman thanked Dr Giam (regional representative for Asia) and requested that he report back to the Committee in due course on the meeting of the Task Force, mentioned in the document, to be held later in 1998.

20. Implementation of Resolution Conf. 10.21 on Transport of Live Animals (Agenda item 6)

Dr Lieberman, as the Chairwoman of the Transport Working Group, introduced document Doc. AC.14.6 on this subject. She asked that the Committee consider passing the chairmanship of the Transport Working Group to a representative of a Management Authority of a country other than the United States of America as she was now in charge of the United States Scientific Authority, it would be good to let another Party chair the working group. She stated that the document contained selected relevant text from Resolution Conf. 10.21, with recommendations for implementation. She suggested that the Secretariat should compile information, through a Notification of the Parties, to determine which Parties have referred to or incorporated the International Air Transport Association's Live Animals Regulations in their domestic legislation. She also recommended that the Animals Committee should look at 20 key species to address problems of mortality associated with transport of specimens of those species. She emphasized that this should be an exercise to address implementation problems, not to prohibit trade in the species. She informed the Committee that the principle of reviewing these 20 species (including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians) had been recommended by a group of several NGOs representing varied interests (including trade and animal welfare perspectives). She noted that she had participated in this process for many years, and it is gratifying to see the consensus work of these diverse interests on this vital issue. She suggested that the Secretariat should collect information on reasons for mortality in transport and monitor implementation of Resolution Conf. 10.21 and report their findings to the Parties.

At the request of the observer from the United Kingdom, Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) read the proposed list of species. She advised that species were placed on the list on the basis of trade volume, information on mortality in transport, and because of the lack of information on reasons for mortality. She acknowledged that for some species the available information was anecdotal only but suggested that high mortality occurred.

Ms Rodics (regional representative for Europe) advised that, in Eastern Europe there was no state quarantine system. Consequently the only mortality data available were from traders and these were unreliable. The observer from Germany reminded the Committee that Germany had presented a report, at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, on mortality rates of over 300,000 animals up to the point of sale to the end consumer. He said that this report was in press and would be provided to the Animals Committee. He said that the European Union now had regulations that required Member States to report transport mortality to the European Commission and that 1998 would be the first year of data collection. The observer from Germany also made a tentative offer to take over the chairmanship of the Transport Working Group, but stated that he would need to consult with his government to ensure that financial support would be available for this task.

Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) recommended that the Parties should not just look at mortality levels but should also seek discussion with traders. The observer from the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) suggested that the Parties should look at potential reasons for mortality at all stages of transport, from export through to the period after import. He stated that his group was photographing shipments at the time of export and import to determine where mortalities occurred and why. He further suggested that contacts with the International Air Transport Association should be done in a very sensitive and diplomatic way to avoid the perception of imposing control that might result in an embargo on live animal shipments by carriers.

Dr Ngog Nje (regional representative for Africa) suggested that, for the list of 20 species, the Parties should not just investigate causes of mortality but determine which exporting countries might have a particular problem with mortality in their shipments. He also suggested that pre-export factors, such as trapping methods, should be studied to assess their potential to influence mortality during transport. Dr Howell (regional representative for Africa) believed that the efforts by PIJAC to photograph shipments should be made known, since this might encourage shippers to improve procedures. Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) explained that the study of trapping methods was an internal matter for Parties to address. The observer from the European Commission stated that there was no provision to publish the data they were collecting but they would share their information with the Animals Committee.

The observer from El Salvador said that humane transport was important but that the Parties should avoid imposing procedures that would impose unnecessary costs on traders. The observer from PIJAC agreed and urged participants to make this a co-operative effort, since specimens used in the live animal trade but that died in transport benefited no one. He also urged that the capabilities of developing as well as developed countries be considered in the development of standards, and stated that reptiles should receive the most immediate attention. Dr Giam (regional representative for Asia) suggested that, for the 20 species, the Committee should look at: which countries were involved in the mortality; who shipped the animals; increases or decreases in mortality over time; causes of mortality; and other factors. He also stated that he had a report to share on mortality. He suggested that the Parties should seek comments from the Commonwealth Veterinary Association and the World Veterinary Association on the CITES guidelines. He suggested that it was important to determine whether mortality in transport was caused by one shipper or concerned shipments from one country, or whether it was widespread. He suggested that lists be compiled of individuals and countries, not just species, associated with high mortality of animals being shipped.

The Chairman agreed with the idea of obtaining comments from veterinary associations and with the need to determine whether high mortality was limited to shipments from certain individuals or countries. Mr Soehartono (regional representative for Asia) recommended that mortality rates for the 20 species be provided as ranges, with standard deviations, which would suggested whether mortality of a species was consistently high or variable, perhaps inflated by one or two incidents of high mortality. Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) stated that the mortality rates given were not for one shipment and were not proffered as a basis for halting trade but rather for improving compliance. The observer from the International Wildlife Coalition agreed that the Parties should pay attention to notorious violators. He added that it would be difficult to draw general conclusions about factors contributing to mortality if any review was not designed to consider species across shipments. He further advised that concentrating on individuals or countries might hamper co-operation in compiling information. Dr Lieberman advised that information would be circulated by the end of the day with suggestions on how to proceed.

Membership of Working Group is contained in Annex 2C.

21. Review of the Use of Coded-microchip Implants for Marking Live Animals in Trade (Agenda item 15)

The Secretariat introduced document Doc. AC.14.15, noting that they received many requests for advice on the marking of specimens. He said that consensus was needed on the application of Resolution Conf. 8.13.

The observer from Electronic Identification Devices Ltd. (EID) circulated different models of microchips and noted the differences among them, pointing out the two ISO standards represented by each and the fact that one allowed for smaller microchips whereas the other resulted in substantially larger microchips. He stated that the size of the microchip was important because there was less intramuscular or subcutaneous migration of the smaller chips. He noted that the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group had recommended that the Conference of the Parties consider the use of microchips for identifying live animals in trade. The observer also noted that the ISO standards were in the public domain and therefore were not protected, and that there was no requirement to have a unique code on each microchip. Most importantly, he noted that microchips could now be re-programmed. He therefore urged the Animals Committee to encourage the development of unique coding, with transponder technology that could be legally protected to ensure unique coding, and that companies providing microchips for live animal identification should be required to demonstrate that they have legal protections on their coding technology.

The Chairman said, "technology has become its own worst enemy"; microchips had been considered a great boon to animal identification but were now nearly useless for CITES purposes if re-programmable. He also noted that monitoring the development of this technology had consumed a great deal of the Secretariat's time, and that the Secretariat should not be required to continue this monitoring. He recommended that Resolution Conf. 8.13 be repealed and replaced with a resolution reflecting a more practical approach to technology for marking. In response to a question from Mr Soehartono (regional representative for Asia), the Chairman stated that the Parties would not be selecting one provider of microchips. Dr Giam (regional representative for Asia) agreed that Resolution Conf. 8.13 should be repealed but noted that microchips were used for marking specimens of Scleropages formosus in Singapore.

The observer from the Bahamas asked for clarification as to whether there was any secure system or company providing microchips, and was told there was none. The observer from the Czech Republic suggested that Resolution Conf. 8.13 be revised in the first operative paragraph as follows:

He recommended that the remainder of the resolution be retained. He also stated that microchips had high value as a marking technology and that the Animals Committee should encourage the development of unique coding systems.

The observer from Argentina stated that Resolution Conf. 8.13 should not be repealed. She noted that no system of marking was completely secure and that the problems that had been identified should not preclude the use of microchips altogether. She recommended that countries adopt a uniform system to ensure compatibility of the technology among countries. She also suggested that the Animals Committee, rather than the Secretariat, should be charged with tracking the development of marking technology. The observer from Germany agreed that Resolution Conf. 8.13 should not be repealed but improved. He noted that some Parties had implemented this resolution. He suggested that new developments in the technology should be considered in revising the resolution and that the Parties should consider in what cases the technology might be most useful.

The observer from the British Falconers Club opposed the use of microchips for falcons as inappropriate. The observer from the IWMC World Conservation Trust stated that marking was an important aspect of the control of wildlife trade and recommended that Resolution Conf. 8.13 should be revised on the basis of consideration of all aspects of the issue. The observer from the Czech Republic disagreed with the observer from the British Falconers Club and stated that more failures of the technology are caused by human error than by the technology itself.

Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) suggested that a revision of Resolution Conf. 8.13 should involve a review of technical improvements in the identification of animals, including an evaluation of genetic marking and identification techniques. She suggested that the Secretariat should advise the Parties of the most recently available technology. She further suggested that this would involve only information collection by the Secretariat, not assessment of the technology.

Dr Quero de Peña (regional representative for Central and South America and the Caribbean) recommended that any revision of Resolution Conf. 8.13 should be based on consideration of the costs of implementing recommendations contained therein. She believed that the Parties should not impose requirements for the use of technology that might be unavailable or expensive to implement in some areas. The observer from the Bahamas noted that Resolution Conf. 8.13 allows for the use of methods of marking other than microchips and does not require the use of any particular marking method. He also noted that the resolution instructs the Animals Committee to monitor technological developments and advise the Secretariat, so this should not be a burden on the Secretariat.

Ms Rodics (regional representative for Europe) stated that in Hungary microchips were being used and the cost was borne by the owner of the animal, and was not prohibitive in any case. The observers from Colombia and Venezuela suggested that this technology be recommended for application to higher-valued animals only, since for some species the technology may exceed the value of the animals. The observer from Venezuela also asked that consideration be given to the need for training in the use of new technologies. The observer from Mexico concurred with the observers from Argentina and Germany and stated that Mexico used microchips to mark confiscated specimens to identify them as the property of the State. The observer from the European Commission advised that the requirements for use of microchips in the European Union were more for internal purposes, but that CITES requirements for marking were limited. The observer from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies noted that his organization's members had marked millions of animals and had a great deal of experience to contribute. He noted particularly that the Parties needed to consider the impact of marking on wildlife because significant mortality had resulted from the marking of animals. The observer from Argentina suggested that a revision of Resolution Conf. 8.13 should recommend that the Animals Committee collect information on the experience of the Parties and interested organizations in marking of animals.

The Chairman agreed with interventions that a draft resolution to revise and replace Resolution Conf. 8.13 should be submitted to the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties. He noted that any revision should ensure that Parties using certain technology should not penalize other Parties that do not have that technology, and that the Parties should also be mindful of the comments by the observers from Colombia and Venezuela regarding costs. The Chairman appointed a working group to draft a revision of Resolution Conf. 8.13, which should incorporate the discussions at this meeting. The members of the group are the Czech Republic (Convener), France, Mexico, the United States of America, Venezuela, the British Falconers Club, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and ZOOCONSULT.

The Chairman closed the session at 12h20.

Sixth Session: 28 May 1998: 14h00 - 17h10

22. Implementation of Decision 10.82 on Trade in Animal Species Used in Traditional Medicine (Agenda item 11)

Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) introduced document Doc. AC 14.11, which provides the background to this item. She noted that COP 10 had directed the Animals Committee to develop a list of species utilised in traditional medicines, to assist the Parties in focusing conservation attention on those species, and to determine the status and effectiveness of CITES implementation for those species (under Conf. 8.9). She recommended that a working group of the Animals Committee be established to fulfil these responsibilities.

The observer from TRAFFIC-USA introduced document Doc. AC 14.11.1, which was divided into two parts. The first concerned regional TRAFFIC activities relating to traditional medicines, and the second part concerned factors to be considered in relation to traditional medicine.

The observer from the Japanese Wildlife Research Centre informed the meeting that, as far as he was aware, Japan had stopped importing musk in the late 1980s.

Dr Choo-Hoo Giam (regional representative for Asia) stated his opposition to the establishment of a working group, or even to the development of a list of species used in traditional medicines, claiming that some people could use such a group or such a list to oppose traditional Asian medicine. He did suggest that the issue could be re-assigned to a workshop on enforcement, targeting problem species such as the tiger and bears.

Dr. Ngog Nje (regional representative for Africa) pointed out that trade shifts from one species to another and this was the reason why the Animals Committee had been asked to look at all species. The observer from Zimbabwe stated that in his opinion the process for identifying species used in traditional medicines could be achieved by the implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (the review of significant trade). He went on to say that unrecorded, cross-border regional trade was a problem that should be addressed.

Consensus for a working group to be established to identify all species used in traditional medicine was not achieved, but it was felt that Parties should be encouraged to supply available trade data to the Secretariat.

23. Conservation and Use of Lampropeltis spp. in Central America (Agenda item 17)

Lic. Oscar Lara (regional representative for Central and South America and the Caribbean) introduced document Doc. AC.14.17. There was general agreement that the species was not the subject of any real conservation concerns and was not suitable for inclusion in Appendix II at this time.

24. Regular Review of Animal Taxa included in the Appendices (Agenda item 16)

Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe) introduced the relevant documents, which included document Doc  AC.14.16.1 on criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II and document Doc. AC.14.16.2, being a letter from the Swiss Scientific Authority.

The Chairman announced that Dr Hoogmoed would chair the discussion of this Agenda item.

Dr Hoogmoed said that a review of all species would be an extremely time consuming and labour-intensive process, which would require a degree of prioritization if it was to be achieved. Document Doc. AC.14.16.1 suggested a possible means of approaching this task.

The observer from the European Commission reminded the Committee that Resolution Conf. 9.24 placed responsibility for the review with range States and proponents in conjunction with the Animals Committee. A way forward would be to consult with range States and proponents to establish which species might require review. The observer from IWC suggested that a systematic approach to review species in a chronological order of listing might be appropriate. The Chairman sought clarification from the Secretariat on whether Resolution Conf. 9.24 took precedence over a Decision taken at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The Secretariat said that, in their view, Resolution Conf. 9.24 took precedence. The observer from Germany suggested that experts should be consulted prior to circulating lists of species to proponents and range States, taking into consideration the conservation status of the species.

Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) agreed that it would be preferable to consult with the Parties on which species they would deem it useful to see evaluated pursuant to Decision 10.71 and Resolution Conf. 9.24. The Committee agreed that the review should be narrow and focused. Interveners disagreed with the recommendations in document Doc. AC.14.6.1, since these would lead to an elaborate review process that would be timely and costly. It was agreed to send a Notification to the Parties, highlighting Resolutions Conf. 9.24, Conf. 9.1 (Rev.) and Decision 10.71; the Parties would be asked which taxa should be reviewed, with a focus on the views of range States. Taxon specialist groups would be consulted as part of the review.

Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe) concluded that the Animals Committee would consult with IUCN/SSC for preparation of a list of priority species and a Notification would be sent to the Parties requesting their input on species to focus on.

25. Other Business (Agenda item 22)

The observer from Canada requested clarification from the Committee of the term "recent lineage" in relation to hybrids. The Secretariat recalled that, in discussions on this subject at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, the delegation of Australia had suggested that this term be interpreted to mean the last four generations of the lineage. There had been no opposition to this at the time. There was general agreement by the Committee that this interpretation provided a useful guideline. The Secretariat said that it would notify all Parties of this interpretation and ask Parties to inform them of any problems encountered in applying it.

The Chairman introduced document Doc. AC.14.22 on Interpretation and Implementation of Articles IV (6) and IV (7) (Introduction from the Sea). The Chairman recommended that the Animals Committee could establish a working group comprising Australia, Japan and the United States of America, to examine this complex matter in more detail and report back to the next meeting of the Committee. The Secretariat stated that, in their view, as the Conference of the Parties had not discussed this subject, it was outside the terms of reference of the Committee to discuss it. They believed it should be referred to the Secretariat, which could refer it to the Standing Committee. The Chairman consequently amended his proposal, saying that the matter could be pursued by the three Parties as an initiative to be progressed independent of the work of the Animals Committee. The working group would then determine whether or not it would report back to the Committee at its next meeting. The observers from these Parties expressed their willingness to form a working group according to the approach suggested by the Chairman. The observer from Argentina suggested that the Secretariat should also participate on the working group.

The Chairman closed the session at 17h10.

Seventh Session: Friday 29 May 1998, 09h00-12h00

The Chairman opened the session at 09h00 and announced that there would be a brief meeting of the working group on microchips during the first coffee break.

Reports of the Ad-hoc Working Groups

26. Implementation of Decision 10.77, Regarding Specimens of Animal Species Bred in Captivity (Working Group I) (Agenda item 9)

The Vice-Chairwoman, who had chaired the meeting of the working group on specimens bred in captivity, presented the minutes of that meeting (Annex 1).

Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe), recommended that the procedure for submitting proposals to the Standing Committee to add species to the list of species commonly bred in captivity [Resolution Conf. 10.16, paragraph b)ii)C)2.a)] should be modified. He suggested that proposals should not be submitted through regional representatives or the Animals Committee to the Secretariat, since the resolution states that the proposals are to be submitted to the Standing Committee by the Animals Committee.

The observer from the United Kingdom asked whether the agreed procedures would require each Party to register all of its breeding operations for Appendix-I species. The Vice-Chairwoman answered that, based on the consensus of the working group, a facility would have to be registered only if the Management Authority was issuing permits under the exemption of Article VII, paragraph 4, for that facility. Facilities not exporting specimens would of course not come under the provisions of the Convention.

The Secretariat suggested that when proposals for the registration of large-scale operations are circulated among the Parties for comment, they should be translated into the working languages of CITES and circulated to the regional representatives. The observer from the Bahamas supported this suggestion.

The observer from the United States of America stated that the definition of "bred in captivity for commercial purposes" was agreed by the Working Group by consensus and was consistent with Resolution Conf. 5.10, and she requested that this be reflected in the minutes.

Mr Soehartono (regional representative for Asia) asked, if an operation were classified as a "small-scale producer", and was therefore not subject to extensive review by the Parties, what would happen if it was found that the operation was engaging in illegal activities. He also asked what would happen if these small-scale producers increased their production, and whether the Animals Committee should review all proposals to register operations. The Chairman stated that these were matters for the working group to consider and stressed that whatever procedures were developed should be streamlined and practical.

The observer from Germany expressed concern about the workload that might result from a two-tiered system requiring different procedures for small- and large-scale producers. He suggested that simply sending a copy of a permit (issued under Article VII, paragraph 4) to the Secretariat should serve as a request for inclusion of a small-scale operation in the Secretariat's database. The Vice-Chairwoman noted that the working group (Particularly range countries) had felt strongly that registration of all facilities is vital to the implementation and enforcement of the Convention, while also agreeing by consensus that expedited registration of small-scale producers was appropriate.

Dr Ngog Nje (regional representative for Africa) suggested that, with reference to Resolution Conf. 8.15, Annex 1, the Parties should pay attention to the role of captive breeding in conservation and that the focus of discussions had been more directed to economic benefits. He suggested that an evaluation of a facility, including any outside the range States of the species, should take account of the contributions it is making to the conservation of the species. He also stated that the names and addresses of non-range State registered facilities must continue to be made available to range States. The Chairman concurred with the suggestion to consider conservation benefits of the breeding operation in the evaluation of proposals. The observer from Chile also agreed that the conservation benefits of captive breeding should be considered, and agreed with suggestions to streamline the registration process, but he disagreed with the idea of eliminating registration of breeding operations. He particularly emphasized the need to be able to determine sources of specimens and that a register or database of breeding operations would serve as one source of such information. He emphatically stated that the focus should be on conservation of species, and control of illegal trade, and not on economic benefits.

The observer from the European Commission recognized the relationship between captive breeding and conservation, and that this should be explored, but expressed the belief that these issues are outside the purview of CITES. He agreed with the working group's definition of "bred in captivity for commercial purposes" but disagreed that there was a need for registration of breeding operations. As for the criteria for determining whether a species is commonly bred, he asked what level of the captive population must be self-sustaining, worldwide or at the country level. He also questioned why illegal trade should be considered in determining whether a species would qualify as "commonly bred in captivity".

The Vice-Chair clarified that it is the global captive population that must be self-sustaining if a species is to be included in the list of species commonly bred in captivity. She also suggested that, in addition to being a factor for consideration by the Animals Committee, information on illegal trade in a given species might be something for the Standing Committee to consider. Such an approach would leave the Animals Committee to deal with the technical and scientific aspects of whether a species qualifies for the list, but would leave the evaluation of political and other factors to the Standing Committee. However, she stated that information on illegal trade obtained by the Animals Committee should be forwarded to the Standing Committee for consideration to assist them in the decision. She also noted that consideration of illegal trade would be especially important in cases of endemic species, especially in cases where export was prohibited by the range countries but specimens are being bred in captivity in importing countries.

The Chairman then established a working group to draft a proposed resolution to replace Resolution Conf. 8.15 on registration of operations breeding Appendix-I species in captivity for commercial purposes. The membership of the working group is contained in Annex 2A. The Chairman nominated Germany to serve as chairman of the working group to co-ordinate its activities.

27. Review of Significant Trade in Species of Animals Included in CITES Appendix II (Working Group II) (Agenda item 14)

The observer from Zimbabwe, who had chaired the working group on significant trade, presented the report of the working group (Annex 1). The Chairman noted that the review of significant trade had become increasingly complex, but it was important to the implementation of Article IV. He added that further discussion of on this topic would take place in closed session.

Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe) stated that Phelsuma quadriocellata should be treated the same as the other three Phelsuma species, and that in addition to Chamaeleo gracilis, which is used for medicinal purposes in West Africa, Chamaeleo chamaeleo, in North Africa is also used for medicinal purposes.

The observer from the International Wildlife Coalition stated that he believed that Padda oryzivora was to have been included in phase 4 but had been omitted. He also suggested that the document used for the discussions of significant trade should be simplified. He noted that the working group had not had time to evaluate the process itself or to determine why non-detriment findings were not being made for some species across their range.

Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) stated that the document that had been prepared contained useful information but agreed that it might facilitate discussions to have the information presented in a database format for future deliberations. She also commented on the inadequacy of the data presentations, particularly in comparison to previous meetings of the Animals Committee.

The observer from TRAFFIC-International suggested that for the 60-day comment period, species with fewer than 100 specimens traded per year should not be considered. She also suggested that data should be checked for accuracy before countries are contacted, that all vicuña populations should be reviewed, not just those in Appendix II, and that all Manis spp. should be reviewed, not just M. javanica.

The Chairman closed the session at 10h30.

Eighth Session: Friday, 29 May 1998, 14h00-16h00

The Chairman announced that the working group on marking of sturgeon specimens would include the United States of America and Germany (both range States), all other range States, as well as the Secretariat and TRAFFIC-International.

28. Other Business - Import of in vitro animal-cell cultures (letter from Switzerland) (Agenda item 22)

The Chairman opened the session by reading a letter from Switzerland on in vitro cell cultures. Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe) stated that the Swiss authorities had resolved the specific problem by issuing a pre-Convention certificate for the specimens. The cell culture tissue could be traced back 30 years, and therefore the Secretariat had advised Switzerland that the issuance of a pre-Convention certificate was appropriate. Dr Hoogmoed suggested that tissue cultures should be treated like flasked orchid seedlings.

The observer from Germany stated that this brings up a more general problem, such as how blood samples are handled. He suggested that perhaps such specimens could be annotated as exempt from CITES provisions, as is done for certain parts of Appendix-II plants. As an alternative, he suggested that the Animals Committee could develop a draft resolution to address how such specimens should be handled. Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) advised that the United States applies some flexibility when dealing with these types of specimens, and she recommended that this issue be dealt with through a resolution. She also commented that these types of specimens do not represent a conservation risk, and that the specific problem raised by Switzerland appeared to be an intra-European problem.

Dr Lara (regional representative for Central and South America and the Caribbean) remarked that this was an issue involving genetic resources and intellectual property rights. Dr Giam (regional representative for Asia) felt that this is essentially a bilateral issue. Mr Soehartono (regional representative for Asia) stated that he did not see this as a generalized problem for CITES. The observer from the Commission for the European Union felt that there was a broader issue for CITES and that there would probably be proposals relating to such specimens at the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties.

The observer from the IWMC-the World Conservation Trust agreed with Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) and stated that this was not the same as the issue raised by Denmark relating to biological specimens some years previously. He also noted that these specimens could not be treated like plants, for which certain specimens could be excluded in accordance with the definition of "specimen" in Article I of CITES. He concurred with the suggestion to develop a draft resolution for relaxed treatment of these specimens because of the lack of conservation risk. The Chairman stated that it appeared that there was agreement on the need for a resolution on this issue and suggested that Switzerland should draft a resolution (either as a stand-alone or amending the existing resolution on readily recognisable parts and products) and consult with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity to ensure that there was no conflict.

28. Other Business: documentation

There was discussion of concerns that documentation for the meeting continues to be available late, if at all. Dr Hoogmoed (regional representative for Europe) suggested that documents be distributed to all Parties before the meeting. Dr Lieberman (regional representative for North America) suggested that documents be immediately posted electronically on the CITES web page, even before they are translated. These suggestions were supported by all, and an effort will be made by the Secretariat to evaluate which countries need assistance with obtaining documents electronically. It was agreed that since almost all Parties have Internet access, it could be much cheaper to make e-mail available to those who do not, or to express mail documents to those few, rather than mailing thick document packages to everyone.

The Chairman then remarked that a summary record of this meeting would be put together to list action items and time frames for their completion (Annex 3). He noted that the Committee needed to decide the date and venue of the next meeting. The observer from Zimbabwe requested that first a brief overview be provided on the proceedings of the closed session relating to Resolution Conf. 8.9. In response the Chairman noted that: