Chapter 4 Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Introduction
4.1
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a multilateral Convention that regulates
international trade in endangered species.[1] Australia has
been a party to the Convention since 1976.[2]
4.2
CITES provides a mechanism for the listing of species identified as
being at risk if subject to international trade. The listings are recorded in
three appendices to the Convention, according to the degree of that risk:
Appendix I is the strictest level of regulation and it
generally prohibits all international trade, except for some non-commercial [purposes]
such as conservation, breeding and so on. Appendix II lists species that could
become endangered if their trade is not regulated and it requires documentation
to be issued in order for international trade to occur in these species. There
is also a third appendix, Appendix III, where the species are regulated at the
initiation of an individual country. It requires, again, the issuing of
documentation.[3]
4.3
The main objective of CITES is to regulate the commercial trade of wild
animals and plants to ensure those species will not be endangered or put at
risk. Timely adjustment of the CITES Appendices is therefore critical to the
Convention’s effective operation.[4]
4.4
Amendments to CITES Appendices are made in accordance with provisions of
Article XV of the Convention and are put forward as nominations for consideration
at the CITES triennial Conference of the Parties meetings.[5]
4.5
At the triennial Conference of the Parties meetings, species may be
nominated for insertion or deletion, or moved to a different category to
reflect a variation in necessary protection status. These proposals are then either
agreed by consensus or voted on and agreed by a two thirds majority, with a
second consideration possible in a plenary session.[6]
The 16th Conference of the Parties
4.6
The 2013 amendments propose inclusion, transferral or deletion of
species in Appendices I and II of the Convention.[7]
The 16th Conference of the Parties, held from 3‑4 March 2013
in Bangkok, Thailand, reviewed 70 listing proposals, of which 55 were adopted.[8]
4.7
Australia is not a Range State[9] for the majority of the
species covered by the 55 listing proposals (that is, they do not occur
naturally in Australia), nor does Australia have an industry in the
international trade of the majority of these species. As such, there will be no
ramifications for Australia of the listing amendments for the majority of these
species.[10]
4.8
The amendments that are relevant to Australia include eight terrestrial
species and seven marine species. The relevant amendments apply to the
following species:
n Pristis microdon
(freshwater sawfish);
n Pteropus brunneus
(dusky (Percy Island) flying fox);
n Thylacinus
cynocephalus (Thylacine);
n Onychogalea lunata
(crescent nail-tail wallaby);
n Caloprymnus
campestris (buff-nosed rat-kangaroo);
n Chaeropus ecaudatus
(pig-footed bandicoot);
n Macrotis leucura
(lesser rabbit-eared bandicoot);
n Rheobatrachus
silus and Rheobatrachus vitellinus (gastric-brooding frog species);
n Manta birostris
and Manta alfredi (manta ray species);
n Carcharhinus
longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark);
n Lamna nasus
(porbeagle shark); and
n Sphyrna lewini,
S. mokarran, and S. zygaena (hammerhead shark species).[11]
Freshwater sawfish
4.9
The Pristis microdon (freshwater sawfish) has been moved from
Appendix II to Appendix I. According to the NIA:
Pristis microdon populations have suffered severe
declines since the 1960s and the species is now considered critically
endangered according to the global IUCN [Red List], and the species is listed
as vulnerable under the EPBC Act.[12] Australia currently has
a zero export quota for this species, so there will be little change to
Australia’s regulation of the international trade in the species as a result of
this listing amendment.[13]
4.10
The species was listed in Appendix II at the triennial Conference in 2007.
At the time, Australia acted to prevent the proposed listing of the species in
Appendix I. Australia’s objection to the listing was the subject of close
examination by the Treaties Committee in its Report 93.
4.11
The Report stated:
The Committee has in-principle concerns about the CITES
listing process that has permitted a species considered critically endangered
internationally to be traded, irrespective of any argument that the Australian
populations are more robust. While this may be the case, it is also clear that
population numbers of the species are uncertain.[14]
4.12
The Committee was also concerned at the presence of the sole exporter of
freshwater sawfish on Australia’s delegation to the Annual Conference:
The Committee is concerned about the inclusion of parties
with an obvious commercial interest in the outcome of negotiations on an
Australian delegation.[15]
4.13
Representatives of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities (the Department) explained what had changed since
the 2007 Conference of the Parties:
Since then a range of information has come to light and some
more studies have been done on the populations in situ in Northern Australia
and that has indicated that our belief that it could maintain a small level of
trade was incorrect and that there were particular pressures on the population.
Also, some information about some genetics indicated that even small levels of
trade could be detrimental. So Australia introduced what we call a non‑detriment
finding, which indicated that there could not be any trade in this from
Australia and Australia stopped allowing the trade of it. Consequently, we felt
that, in order to match our domestic position, we should not allow any of that
trade, that we would move to have it listed on appendix 1.[16]
Dusky flying fox
4.14
The Pteropus brunneus (dusky (Percy Island) flying fox) has been
removed from Appendix II. Representatives of the Department explained:
…it had been listed as Pteropus brunneus, and had been
listed on the appendices, but it appears that at the time that it was
taxonomically described it was not actually a valid species—that it came from
one specimen which was probably a different type of flying fox, and it had
never been seen since and has never been described since. Part of this was
about trying to tidy up the appendices, so we were not seeking to regulate
something which really was not a valid taxonomic species.[17]
Removing extinct species
4.15
A number of species believed to be extinct were removed from Appendix I.
The species were:
n Thylacinus
cynocephalus (Thylacine);
n Onychogalea lunata
(crescent nail-tail wallaby);
n Caloprymnus
campestris (buff-nosed rat-kangaroo);
n Chaeropus
ecaudatus (pig-footed bandicoot); and
n Macrotis leucura
(lesser rabbit-eared bandicoot).[18]
4.16
In addition, two species believed to be extinct were removed from
Appendix II. The species were:
n Rheobatrachus
silus (southern gastric-brooding frog); and
n Rheobatrachus
vitellinus (northern gastric-brooding frog).[19]
4.17
The species were removed as they are presumed extinct and do not meet
the biological and trade criteria for listing on the Appendices.[20]
Manta ray species
4.18
Manta ray species (currently including Manta birostris and Manta
alfredi) were listed in Appendix II. Australia is a Range State for manta
rays, but manta rays are not targeted nor taken as a by-product in Australian
fisheries. According to the NIA, the listing may have positive implications, as
there are tourism industries in Australia focused on diving and snorkelling
with these species.[21]
Shark species
4.19
A number of shark species have now been included in Appendix II, including:
n Carcharhinus
longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark);
n Lamna nasus
(porbeagle shark); and
n Sphyrna lewini,
S. mokarran, and S. zygaena (scalloped, great and smooth
hammerhead sharks).[22]
4.20
According to the NIA, with the exception of the hammerhead sharks, none
of these species is directly targeted in Australian fisheries.[23]
4.21
Hammerhead sharks are taken in much larger numbers than the other sharks
subject to this listing, particularly in Queensland, the Northern Territory and
Western Australia.[24]
4.22
Exports of any of the listed sharks will in future require an export
permit underpinned by a non-detriment finding, which will need to be undertaken
by the Department.[25]
4.23
At present, Australian fisheries management authorities have some
difficulty in determining the take of each of these species. When shark is
exported from Australia it is coded generically, for example as ‘shark fins’ or
‘shark mixed.’[26]
4.24
The listing of the shark and manta ray species is unusual because,
unlike all the other listings from the 16th Conference of the
Parties, it will not come into effect until September 2014.[27]
4.25
The Department is making use of the extended timeframe before the
listing comes into effect to identify gaps in the information available on the
quantity of each shark species that is exported, and work with State and
Territory fisheries management authorities to address these gaps.[28]
State and Territory opposition
4.26
The States and Territories where the bulk of these shark species are
commercially fished (Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and Queensland)
had, during consultation on the changes proposed for the 16th
Conference of the Parties, indicated their opposition to the listing of the shark
species. In general, the grounds for their opposition related to the fact that
the species were either abundant, or were sustainably fished, within the waters
of these States and Territories.[29]
4.27
While not disagreeing with the claims of the State and Territory
fisheries management authorities, the Australian Government nevertheless
supported the listing of these species because:
…we are looking at not just the state of the Australian
population of these particular stocks but the global context. So while we
consult and we obviously are interested in and need to take into account the
views of our state governments, we then have to weigh that up against the
scientific evidence of the global population informing the view that we take to
the conventions. We are not just voting on what the population is in Australia;
we are voting on what the population is in the international context and
whether it meets the requirements that CITES has for listing on its particular
appendices… As I said earlier, because something is CITES Appendix II listed
does not mean that zero export can happen. It actually is export that needs to
be done in conjunction with a non-detriment finding about the level of take
within Australian waters. [30]
Consultation
4.28
The Committee has in the past been critical of the Department’s
consultation processes, particularly in relation to the listing of shark
species in multilateral conservation treaties. In Report 111, the Committee
reviewed the Amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, which involved the listing of shark
species in Appendix II of that Convention.[31]
4.29
The Committee received over 40 submissions to that inquiry, including
many from recreational fishing groups and individuals opposed to the listing of
those species. One of the most significant grounds for opposition was the lack
of consultation with people involved in recreational fishing.[32]
4.30
Before the end of that inquiry, the Department told the Committee that
the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts had announced that the
Government would move to introduce legislation to ensure that the listing of
sharks in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species would not affect
recreational fishing activities in Australia.[33]
4.31
The Committee was keen to ensure that appropriate levels of consultation
on the proposals before the 16th Conference of the Parties had
occurred prior to the Conference.
4.32
In relation to recreational fishing, the Department was able to
demonstrate consultation:
…in the lead-up to this and in formulating our position
against these nominations we did write out to a number of recreational fishing
bodies… The few that responded basically said that they did not believe that
this would impact on their constituents in any way. [34]
4.33
The Department also noted that:
…the CITES convention only regulates international trade, so
it does not actually impact at all on how the species is taken by the
recreational industry in Australia. The listing of the porbeagle under CITES
will not impact on the level of recreational take.[35]
4.34
In relation to commercial fishing, the Department also advised that:
…we did quite a lot of consultation, both with fishers
themselves and with state management bodies around the country, and the
Australian Fisheries Management Authority for Commonwealth fishers… it is
important that it is understood that… being appendix 2 listed does not mean
zero export; it means that export must be done with a permit from an approved
source, where the approved source is one where a non-detriment finding has been
made that the arrangements in place for the level of take of those species is
sustainable from Australian waters. The delay of 18 months before these
arrangements come into effect—they will not come into effect until September
2014—gives SEWPaC[36], the management
authorities and the industry itself the time it takes in which to put in place
the arrangements to support a non-detriment finding where that is appropriate. [37]
Regulation of international trade
4.35
The Conference of the Parties also adopted a Resolution for the better
regulation of international trade in species.[38] This may require an
amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act) in the future, to reflect the agreed procedures for
implementing the Convention in relation to listed specimens harvested in
international waters.[39]
4.36
According to the NIA:
Since the Convention came into force 40 years ago, Parties
have disagreed on whether specimens listed under the Convention which are
harvested on the high seas are the responsibility of the port State where the
catch is landed, the flag State of vessel registration, or the chartering State
in instances where a vessel ‘rental’ agreement is in place.[40]
4.37
The agreed resolution represents a combination of each of these
scenarios, which allows for transparency, monitoring and review. It includes
clear delineation of which State holds responsibility for making non-detriment
findings and issuing Convention documents.[41]
4.38
Domestic regulatory amendments may be required to reflect the intent of
this Resolution such that in order for an Australian vessel to fish on the high
seas and land its catch in the port of another State, a Convention ‘export
permit’ would be required from Australia’s Convention Management Authority,
rather than an ‘Introduction from the Sea certificate’.[42]
Implementation
4.39
Under CITES Article XV(1)(c), amendments to the Appendices automatically
enter into force 90 days after the meeting at which they are agreed unless a
party lodges a reservation.[43]
Consequently, with the exception of the amendments relating to the listing of manta
ray and shark species discussed above, these amendments entered into force for
Australia on 12 June 2010.[44]
4.40
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities wrote to the Committee on 19 February 2013,[45]
informing of the proposed amendments to CITES to be debated at the 16th
Conference of the Parties.
4.41
On 16 May 2013, the Minister further advised that the amended Appendix I
and II would enter into force 90 days after the Conference, and requested the Committee
consider the treaty actions prior to dissolution of the Parliament.[46]
4.42
CITES is implemented in Australia via the EPBC Act, which requires the
Minister to establish a list of CITES species for the purposes of the Act. This
list now contains the most recent amendments.[47]
Conclusion
4.43
As amendments to CITES enter force automatically (and, for the most
part, have already done so), it is not necessary for the Committee to make a
recommendation on these amendments.
4.44
Nevertheless, the Committee supports the amendments made by the 16th
Conference of the Parties and commends the Department’s improved consultation
with stakeholders, including the Minister’s regular advice to the Committee on
the matters being considered by the Conference.
