Key Points

 WWF Position

Document recommends a review of the Convention with the aim of improving “ the equitability of the Convention with regards to the role of people and States to be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora and the rights of rural communities and indigenous people over their own natural resources”, as well as a study on the contradictions between CITES and GATT 1994, and a comprehensive review of the Appendices to be completed for CoP20

This document only focuses on cases where either CITES Decisions or stricter domestic measures are allegedly overly strict or impede sustainable use. It is silent on the possibility that some species warrant stricter regulation. Furthermore, while the compatibility of CITES and stricter domestic measures with GATT was a pertinent issue at the time of CoP10, subsequent jurisprudence does not point to any need to revisit this issue. In addition, the proposed review of existing listings would be inordinately expensive. In conclusion, while WWF is not opposed to a review of the Convention, the terms of reference for such a review warrant far more detailed and balanced consideration. If the Parties are minded to support a review, we suggest that draft Decisions mandate the Standing Committee to prepare terms of reference for consideration by CoP19.

OPPOSE

 

 

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Proposes a review of the efficacy of marine fish listings to date and urges that Parties do not submit further listing proposals for such species pending such a review

While there are some marine species listings whose implementation has required protracted discussions in the Animals and Standing Committees, the same is true of many other animal species, including Asian big cats, elephants, rhinos, pangolins, freshwater turtles and tortoises, snakes etc. Similarly, some plant listings, including orchids and some timber species, have required examination in the Plants and Standing Committees. This is an inevitable consequence of many well-merited listing decisions and there is no reason why marine listings should be singled out in this regard. And this cuts across Parties’ right to submit any proposal they choose at any CoP.

OPPOSE

 

 

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Proposes a draft Decision urging Parties to continue to provide funding to ICCWC

Over its lifespan, ICCWC has provided a considerable amount of capacity to CITES Parties and other stakeholders and it merits continued funding.

SUPPORT

 

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Directs the CITES Secretariat, with the Standing Committee, to develop an MoU with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre; urges CITES Authorities of those Parties that are also WHC Parties to cooperate with their respective WHC Focal Points, encourages donors to support projects that benefit the objectives of both CITES and WHC; and urges Parties with World Heritage sites that are threatened by poaching of CITES-listed species to reach out to other range, transit and consumer countries.

WWF, in our 2017 report entitled Not for Sale: halting the illegal trade of CITES-listed species from World Heritage Sites, has already highlighted how important many natural World Heritage sites are in terms of the size of their populations of CITES-listed species, while also demonstrating how illegal harvest of such species in those sites, for the purposes of international trade, poses a threat to their Outstanding Universal Value, under the World Heritage Convention. This document sets out a suite of modest asks that would address this problem, and reflects the will of the International Community as already expressed in the World Heritage Committee, where this issue has been discussed.

SUPPORT

 

 Key Points

 WWF Position

The Standing Committee recommended the retention of the Decisions mandating work on this issue but the Secretariat recommends as an alternative some revisions to Resolution Conf. 16.6 (Rev. CoP) on CITES and Livelihoods encouraging Parties to take account of the impact of the measures proposed on rural communities, when submitting proposals to amend the Appendices, draft Resolutions, draft decisions, and other documents for CoPs and when reviewing such documents submitted by other Parties; and to include representatives of rural communities that may be affected by the proposed measures in official national delegations to CoPs.

WWF warmly supports the recommendation that Parties include representatives of rural communities in their delegations for CITES meetings. We also support in principle the recommendation that, as far as practicable, the impacts on rural communities of Resolutions, Decisions and amendments to Appendices I and II be considered at an early stage. However, we are also mindful of the precedence of the Convention text - Article II in particular - and relevant CoP Resolutions, including Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17), Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP17), Resolution Conf. 14.3 and Resolution Conf. 16.7 (Rev. CoP17). The important point is to consider livelihood impacts in terms of how negative impacts might be mitigated and positive impacts enhanced. Therefore, we suggest the use of the word “address the impact of the measures proposed on rural communities” rather than “take into account...”.

SUPPORT IN PRINCIPLE

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Would require countries submitting listing proposals or agenda documents to the CoP to consult with rural communities and to take account of the impact on such communities.

WWF supports the principle of taking the views of rural communities into consideration. We believe that national authorities are best placed to identify and consult with rural communities within their territories. Accordingly, we submit that the proposed changes to Resolution Conf 4.6 (Rev. CoP17) and res. Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17) should be strengthened to encourage range States, when they are consulted on such proposals, to consult with local communities and indigenous peoples within their territories to take account of the impact of CITES proposals and decisions on such communities.

SUPPORT IN PRINCIPLE

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Document proposes (i) that a Resolution be prepared for CoP19 endorsing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas; and (ii) that a Rural Communities Committee be established.

WWF supports in principle the proposal for a Resolution on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. We believe that rural communities can be best represented and have their voice heard most effectively if they participate in other CITES meetings and bodies, rather than deliberate in isolation.

SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION

 

ENCOURAGE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON HOW TO ENSURE STRONG REPRESENTATION OF THE VIEWS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES. AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, SUPPORT THE SECRETARIAT’S RECOMMENDATION IN COP. DOC. 17.1 THAT PARTIES BE ENCOURAGED TO INCLUDE COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES ON THEIR COP DELEGATIONS

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Proposes a review and a further workshop on this issue based on new case studies. Also proposes amendments to.

WWF believes that the case study approach is the best way to address livelihood issues in CITES in the long term.

SUPPORT

 

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Draft Decisions would mandate the re-establishment of the Standing Committee working group on livelihoods with a mandate that would include consideration of the need for a new Resolution or amendment of an existing Resolution.

WWF is open to consideration of amending Resolution Conf. 16.6 and so we support the draft Decisions in principle, although it is not apparent to us at this stage that a new Resolution is necessary.

SUPPORT

 

 Key Points

 WWF Position

Would require Parties submitting listing proposals to indicate both positive and negative livelihood impacts and to identify how the latter might be mitigated.

WWF believes that there is merit in anticipating livelihood issues where possible when adopting listings, Resolutions or Decisions. However, any proposed mechanism for doing so must take account of the precedence of the Convention text - Article II in particular - and relevant CoP Resolutions, including Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP17), Resolution Conf. 11.3 (Rev. CoP17), Resolution Conf. 14.3 and Resolution Conf. 16.7 (Rev. CoP17). Accordingly, we would direct Parties to our comments on CoP8 Doc. 17.1> We would also like to see other approaches considered, including learning from previous case studies.

OPPOSE