Why? This we do not know, and we were unable to find any good reason in the three and a half pages of comments produced by the Secretariat to support its views. This is even less understandable when we consider that it is absolutely evident that the proposal considered at COP11 would have been adopted exactly as it was if its title, not only the supporting statement, would have also made clear that the purpose of the proposal was to list the whole species in Appendix I, including possibly introduced individuals and populations, i.e. to eliminate any split-listing.

It is not the purpose of this paper to argue again about this case. The new proposal of Argentina and the documents attached to it, finally communicated direct to the Management Authorities with Notification to the Parties No. 2001/080 of 19 December 2001, are explicit enough to present the issue. As for the comments on the proposal and the recommendation of the Secretariat, also attached to that Notification, we must consider them as largely irrelevant. It is not necessary, and would take too much space, to refute all of them here but we have to highlight briefly two serious concerns.

First, the Secretariat, in its new argumentation, is confounding two different terms, ‘population’ and ‘area of distribution’ or ‘range States’. In doing so, it asserts that the proposal of Argentina is not acceptable because Argentina has not consulted those countries in which Araucaria araucana have been introduced (e.g. in parks and gardens of many countries throughout the world), contrary to Resolutions Conf. 8.21 and Conf. 9.24, both of which refer to the consultation of range States. This is aberrant and certainly does not reflect what the Conference of the Parties wanted when it adopted these Resolutions.

Secondly and more importantly, the Secretariat considers that the current listing is the appropriate listing for the conservation of the species. This is in total opposition to the feelings of Argentina and Chile, the only two range States of the species, denies the views of the Conference of the Parties and those of the Plants Committee and, indeed, reflects an irresponsible attitude of the Secretariat, which even contradicts the position it adopted before COP11 in its comments on the initial Argentine proposal.

By now, as it is known, Argentina is unfortunately crossing a difficult political and economic crisis, which may of course be favourable to illegal activities, including illegal trade in wildlife. Therefore, Argentina (as well as Chile), as recognized in the third paragraph of the CITES preamble, needs the international co-operation to protect its natural resources, in particular wild species like Araucaria araucana. Therefore, IWMC is strongly recommending to the Parties to express to the Secretariat their support of the proposal of Argentina, before 5 February 2002, and, in the next step of the postal procedure, not to object to the proposal.

We also express the hope that the Secretariat will understand that its current position is in contradiction with the objectives of the Convention and with the role it has been entrusted, and that its final recommendation will be in favour of the proposal.