In the same Notification, the Secretariat stated, without any justification, that it "wishes to note that it has nothing to add to the comments that it already made in its Notification… dated 7 December 2001 and that it continues to recommend rejection of the proposal of Argentina". In doing so, the Secretariat simply ignored the comments received from Parties, including the only two range States of the species, and from organizations it had consulted in accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.13 because they are recognized as competent in the matter by the Conference of the Parties. No explanation was provided to such a lack of respect for Parties and reputable organizations.

Although the Philippines were unable to meet the deadline of 60 days to submit its comments, it reacted extremely promptly to the Notification dated 14 February, since, as stated in a new Notification dated 25 February, the Philippines is said to have made an objection to the proposal of Argentina on 18 February already, i.e. before many Parties received the Notification. The Philippines justified its objection in stating that Araucaria araucana is an introduced species in its country, that populations of the species outside Argentina and Chile are currently traded in many countries without negative effect on the natural population, and that the policy of the Philippines is to encourage commercial utilization of plantation species.

This appears legitimate, although it is surprising that: 1) this was not stated by the Philippine delegation at CoP11 when the first Argentine proposal was adopted, 2) the existence of such plantations was ignored by the Plants Committee when it met in Shepherdstown in December 2000, and 3) such trade for a species listed in CITES Appendices since 1975 does not appear in the CITES statistics. Finally, it must be reminded that artificially propagated specimens, including from plantations, of Appendix-I species may be traded in accordance with Article IV, paragraph 4, of the Convention. We may therefore regret that the Philippines considered necessary to make an objection.

The purpose of the Notification of 25 February is to submit the proposal of Argentina to a postal vote. The Parties have 60 days to vote, i.e. until 26 April 2002. The votes must be sent to the Secretariat either FOR or against the proposal. Abstentions are also possible. For that purpose, because no ballot papers were attached to the Notification, the Parties have to send a short letter or fax to the Secretariat. It is expected that e-mails will not be accepted.

The vote will be valid only if at least half of the Parties, i.e. 79, participate in it. Therefore, IWMC strongly recommends to the Parties to vote before 26 April and to vote FOR the proposal, for the reasons exposed by Argentina in its proposal and its comments, as well as by Chile and others, including IWMC in its precedent article. For the benefit of the conservation of the species in the wild and to avoid the postponement of the decision until CoP12, it is imperative that enough Parties vote now.