Araucaria araucana was included in Appendix II when the Convention entered into force on 1 July 1975. Natural populations of this species are found only in Argentina and Chile.

Paragraph 2.

At its second meeting (San José,1979) the Conference of the Parties approved a proposal by Chile to transfer its population of this species to Appendix I.

Paragraph 3.

At its 11^th meeting (Gigiri, 2000) the Conference of the Parties approved a proposal from Argentina to transfer its population of the species from Appendix II to Appendix I.

This paragraph does not reflect correctly what happened at CoP11. In effect, although the section A. Proposal of the proposal of Argentina actually requested the transfer of the Argentine population of Araucaria araucana from Appendix II to Appendix I, the proposal made absolutely clear, under item 6. Other Comments of section C. Supporting Statement, that if adopted, the double listing (or split-listing) that as prevailed to the present would be avoided. The deletion of the split-listing of species was therefore a clear objective of the proposal, and was in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.24 Annex 3. Indeed, in accordance with Decision of the Conference of the Parties 10.15, which became Decision 11.11 after CoP11, "The term ‘the text of the proposed amendment’ in Article XV, paragraph 1, of the Convention includes the substantially complete supporting statement accompanying it, … ". Consequently, the deletion of the split-listing was actually part of the proposal of Argentina and this was accepted by the Conference of the Parties, without any objection, as attested by the summary report of the fifth session of Committee I at CoP11, document Com.I. 11.5. Surprisingly or not, the Secretariat never commented, either in the documents it submitted to the Standing Committee or in its last comments, about the effect of Decision 10.15 or 11.11.

The elimination of the split-listing was however at the centre of all discussions that preceded the formal submission of the proposal and its approval by Committee I. The Secretariat itself referred to this elimination in both its provisional assessment of the proposal, communicated through its Notification to the Parties No. 1999/097 of 29 December 1999, and its final comments included in document Doc. 11.59.3 Annex 1, proposal Prop. 11.55 (extracts of these assessment and comments appeared in the document submitted by Argentina for consideration by the Plants Committee, document Doc. PC.10.9.a, paragraph 9). In the same document [paragraph 15 d)], Argentina recognized "that it might have been better if the proposal would have requested the transfer to Appendix I of the species Araucaria araucana except the population of Chile". However, the purpose of the proposal was so evident that even the Secretariat, whose role is also to guide the Parties, did not recommend such a change when the draft proposal was discussed by the Plants Committee at its ninth meeting (Darwin, 1999) or when it was formally submitted to the Secretariat before CoP11. The Secretariat never explained why it did not make such a recommendation at such times.