The 16^th meeting of the Animals Committee took place immediately after (10-15 December) the joint meeting mentioned above and in parallel with the 10^th meeting of the Plants Committee. The meeting was the first one after CoP11 and it was conducted by a new Chairman, Dr Marinus Hoogdmoed (Representative of Europe), and comprised a number of new members. The split noted in the joint meeting was less apparent in the meeting of the Animals Committee, although still clearly present, in particular on certain issues, such as the captive-breeding of Appendix-I species, the reviews of species listed in the Appendices of those listed in Appendix II subject to significant trade.

  Here again almost no decision was taken, these being left for the two meetings that should take place before CoP12 in Chile. In particular, no progress was made towards the adoption of an Annex 3 to Resolution Conf. 11.14 on the registration of operations breeding Appendix-I animals in captivity for commercial purposes. This means that the effective implementation of this new Resolution is postponed for at least one year, leaving Resolution Conf. 8.15 in force, although its lack of efficiency has been recognized almost unanimously.

  Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the suggestions by the Chairman to concentrate the efforts of the Committee on species already listed in CITES Appendices rather than on species and issues not of direct or full relevance to CITES, such as sea-horses, alien species or sharks, were in general supported. The idea that a new CITES committee on implementation issues received a rather strong support, although the financial implications were noted. If approved at a later stage, this idea would make of the Animals Committee a more scientific body than at present.�

  IWMC World Conservation Trust did not participate in the 10^th meeting of the Plants Committee but had considerable discussions with members of the Committee and observer representatives of Parties and NGOs, in particular on one issue that took an unexpected place in the debates during and around the meeting. This issue originated from the decision of the CITES Secretariat to revise the listing of Araucaria araucana in the Appendices after the Conference of the Parties had agreed to eliminate the split-listing of the species at CoP11 through the transfer of the only population of that species listed in Appendix II, that of Argentina, to Appendix I.

  Following a simple request of information from one Party about the status of trees introduced in countries outside of the range of the species (Argentina and Chile), the Secretariat, in its revised Appendices I and II sent to the Parties at the end of July 2000, decided to list the populations of these two States in Appendix I and to retain the species, except these populations, in Appendix II. This revision was considered as unacceptable by Argentina, the author of the proposed amendment unanimously approved at CoP11, as well as by Chile.

  Finally, because of the refusal of the representatives of the Secretariat to reverse to the original listing of the whole species in Appendix I, the Plants Committee, with the full support of the observers present, decided to sent a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee requesting that the Secretariat be instructed to correct quickly its last edition of Appendices I and II. IWMC hopes that this would be done in the very near future to avoid the enforcement problems created by the split-listing.�