Special Edition

Page 1     Page 2     Page 3

This is of significance for another reason also. Actually, if seeds would be considered as whole plants, it would not be possible to exempt them from the provisions of the Convention, as they are for most species included in Appendices II and III. If the new reasoning of the Secretariat were to be followed, most annotations placed against these species would have had to be changed to eliminate seeds, since the same term may not be defined differently depending on its use. We can be confident that the Conference will never take such a decision.

In continuation to its justification, the Secretariat indicates that the text proposed "reflects a similar situation encountered in the field of fauna" and overcome by CITES through the ranching scheme. So doing, the Secretariat omits, as the United States did before, what the Parties agreed repeatedly, including in the preamble of Resolution Conf. 11.11, i.e. that fauna and flora are different and must be treated differently. This explains why the Parties have adopted fundamentally different definitions for the term 'bred in captivity' and the term 'artificially propagated', the second excluding notably the second-generation requirement. In addition, the Parties recognize that artificial propagation "has a positive effect on the conservation status of the wild population" and "could also increase conservation interest in the areas of natural distribution" (see the preamble of Resolution Conf. 9.19). They do not expressed the same recognition for captive breeding. We do not have the feeling that this would be changed. We are persuaded indeed that any change would be counterproductive.

We do agree however that the establishment of some safeguards to the harvesting of wild seeds, including for the production of artificially-propagated plants is reasonable. This was done in Bangkok. However, the conditions to be met and the limitation essentially to tree species for the use of wild seeds are in our views excessive. Consequently, the revision of the definition of the term 'artificially propagated' adopted at CoP13 may not be considered as a simple improvement of the clarity of the earlier definition, what was required under Decision 12.11, paragraph e); the new definition is actually much more restrictive than that provided in Resolution Conf. 11.11.

We are also pleased that the Conference of the Parties has adopted the two draft decisions in document CoP13 Com. I. 9 without deleting the words "pertaining to the production of specimens of Appendix-I species grown from wild-collected seeds and spores". This was suggested by the Secretariat in its continuing insistence to defend its own views on the issue, for unknown reasons, which it would be interesting to know.

How should we interpret the last paragraph of document CoP13 Doc. 51 Addendum? This is another question. Just as a refusal by the Secretariat to undertake a work directed to it by the Conference of the Parties? This would also be ultra vires, and in contradiction with Article XII, paragraph 2 (i), under which the Secretariat shall "perform any other function as may be entrusted to it by the Parties". In addition, it is largely exaggerated to put forward, as an excuse, that to make changes in Resolution Conf. 9.19 to remove inconsistency with the revised Resolution Conf. 11.11 "is subject to varying interpretations" and "that such judgements are more properly undertaken by the Conference of the Parties". First of all we do not believe that this is true, the work required being essentially to transpose wording from a resolution into another. Furthermore, the Secretariat is constantly making interpretations, in particular when it is making recommendations as it ought to do. We have little doubt, if any, that it will be able to amend Resolution Conf. 9.19 in a proper way. In any case, all Secretariat's interpretations may be contested by the Conference of the Parties, which always has the last word.