This paragraph is surprising for the following reasons:

1. If IUCN, from many years, is conducting an analysis of all proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II of CITES, and, therefore, did analyze the proposal submitted by Argentina for CoP11, it does not seem that it was specifically consulted on that proposal before CoP11.
   
2. ITTO and FAO on their sides were not consulted at all on the original proposal of Argentina. For CoP11, with respect to plants, the Secretariat consulted these organizations about one proposal only, that from the United States of America concerning Guaiacum sanctum (see document Doc. 11.59.3, paragraph 5, and Annex 2, paragraph 5, as well as the copy of the letter from the Forestry Department of FAO about that species exclusively). ITTO did not provide any answer to the Secretariat. The species was most likely not considered by the Secretariat, at that time, as a timber species.
   
3. Why has ITTO and FAO been consulted this time? We may wonder, in particular with respect to ITTO. Indeed, although Araucaria araucana is a tree and its timber was described as of excellent quality in the proposal of Argentina for CoP11, no international trade in timber from Argentina has been recorded by WCMC. Furthermore, although the species was listed in Appendix II, when the Convention was adopted, for its timber only, this was changed at CoP5 (Buenos Aires, 1985). Since then, it was not, and still is not treated as a specific timber species, for which the only parts and derivatives subject to control are logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets. In addition, this is not a tropical species as it occurs naturally in regions of Argentina and Chile far below the Tropic of Capricorn.