{
  "url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2019-1719/annex-II/division-UNION/division-1",
  "json_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2019-1719/annex-II/division-UNION/division-1.json",
  "legislation": "eudn/2019/1719",
  "legislation_title": "Council Decision (EU) 2019/1719 of 8 July 2019 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union at the 18th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES CoP 18) (Geneva, Switzerland, 17-28 August 2019)",
  "legislation_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2019-1719",
  "path": "annex/II/division/UNION/division/1",
  "kind": "division",
  "number": "1",
  "heading": "Listing Proposals",
  "text": "Whereby transformed wood is defined by HS code 44.09: Wood (including strips, friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled), continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, v‐jointed, beaded or the like) along any edges, ends or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed.’\nThis term, as used in the CITES Appendices refers to product, shipped singly or in bulk, requiring No further processing, packaged, labelled for final use or the retail trade in a state fit for being sold to or used by the general public.’\nNo\nTaxon / Detail\nProposal\nProponent\nComments\nPosition\n1.\nCapra falconeri heptneri\n(Heptner’s markhor)\n(population of Tajikistan)\nI – II\nTransfer the population of Tajikistan from App. I to App. II\nTajikistan\nPopulation seems to be increasing and hunting management under the CITES provisions for Appendix I species has generated revenues going back into the communities and conservation. However, the proposal does not contain strong evidence to demonstrate that the precautionary measures in Annex 4 of Res. Conf. 9.24 are satisfied. A downlisting would lead to increased volume of trade without guarantees that the revenues would be returned to conservation. IUCN recommended to continue and reinforce the current management.\n–\n2.\nSaiga tatarica\n(Saiga antelope)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nMongolia, United States of America\nThe proposal considers all recent Saiga to be one species, in line with the IUCN Red List. However, the currently valid CITES taxonomic reference separates the Mongolian populations as S. borealis. The Union will support the interpretation of the scope of the listing suggested by the US. If this interpretation is accepted, the CoP will consider listing of the two species S. borealis and S. tatarica.\nS. borealis meets the Appendix I listing criteria and the Union will support its listing in Appendix I.\nThe Union will support listing in Appendix I of S. tatarica, provided that all principal range States agree with the listing, and only if S. borealis is listed in Appendix I as well.\nThe Union will oppose the listing in Appendix I of S. tatarica if S. borealis is not uplisted as well, to avoid any negative impact on the population of S. borealis.\n0\n3.\nVicugna vicugna\n(Vicuña)\n(population of the Province of Salta)\nI – II\nTransfer the population of the Province of Salta (Argentina) from App. I to App. II with annotation 1\nArgentina\nSince 2006, the population size is increasing considerably, population monitoring seems to be good and 41 % (14 000 km2) of the habitat is protected. The only form of planned utilisation is shearing of wild specimens.\nConsider jointly with working document no. 91.\n+\n4.\nVicugna vicugna\n(Vicuña)\n(population of Chile)\nAmend the name of the population of Chile from ‘population of the Primera Región’ to ‘populations of the region of Tarapacá and of the region of Arica and Parinacota’\nChile\nSupport – the proposal does not contain any substantive change to the listing and only adjusts a geographical name.\n+\n5.\nGiraffa camelopardalis\n(Giraffe)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nCentral African Republic, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Niger and Senegal\nThe current conservation status of the nine subspecies and the presence and severity of main threats show large regional variations. Taking into account overall declines recorded over the last three generations and decreasing trends of the Giraffe population, an Appendix II listing has merits in preventing this species from becoming threatened in the future. Therefore, considering the precautionary approach and acting in the best interest of the conservation of the species, the listing in Appendix II is supported by the Union.\n+\n6.\nAonyx cinereus\n(Small-clawed otter)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nIndia, Nepal and the Philippines\nAccording to IUCN, pet trade on the internet contributes to the recent rapid decline of the species.\nThere are some indications that the level of this trade is growing in recent years.\n+\n7.\nLutrogale perspicillata\n(Smooth-coated otter)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nBangladesh, India and Nepal\nThere are low levels of recorded legal international trade, but uplisting could help protect the species as the volume of illegal trade is significant.\n+\n8.\nCeratotherium simum simum\n(Southern white rhinoceros)\n(population of Eswatini)\nRemove the existing annotation for the population of Eswatini\nEswatini\nOppose. The population continues to meet App. II listing criteria, but removal of the annotation as proposed would not meet the precautionary safeguards set out in Para A. 2. a) in Annex 4 of Res. Conf. 9.24. Resumption of rhino horn trade would send the wrong signal at this point in time, given the high level of poaching and illegal trade. It would also undermine demand reduction action by many Parties for this species.\n–\n9.\nCeratotherium simum simum\n(Southern white rhinoceros)\n(population of Namibia)\nI – II\nTransfer of the population of Ceratotherium simum simum of Namibia from Appendix I to Appendix II with the following annotation:\n‘For the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in:\na.. live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; and\nb.. hunting trophies.\nAll other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.’\nNamibia\nThe high levels of poaching and trafficking for this species remain of considerable concern for the Union. Successful conservation of the species in Namibia needs to be recognized, however, we should also note that more than a third part of the whole Namibian population was imported and two thirds belong to private owners, and the trade in hunting trophies and live animals for non-commercial purposes, to destinations suitably equipped to house and care for them, is already possible under Annex I.\nIf the proposal is adopted by the CoP, the Union would request that it be accompanied by a set of decisions to monitor and report periodically on the possible impact of this downlisting.\n(–)\n10.\nLoxodonta africana\n(African elephant)\nI – II\nTransfer the population of Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II subject to:\n1.. 1.Trade in registered raw ivory (tusks and pieces) for commercial purposes only to CITES-approved trading partners who will not re‐export.\n2.. Trade in hunting trophies for non‐commercial purposes.\n3.. Trade in hides and leather goods.\n4.. All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.\nZambia\nThe annotation suggested by Zambia would re-open international ivory trade and cannot be supported as it stands.\n–\n11.\nLoxodonta africana\n(African elephant)\n(populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe)\nAmendment of annotation 2\nAmendment of annotation 2:\n‘For the exclusive purpose of allowing:\n[...]\ng.. trade in registered raw ivory (for Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe, whole tusks and pieces) subject to the following:\ni.. only registered government-owned stocks, originating in the State (excluding seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin);\nii.. only to trading partners that have been verified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not be re‐exported and will be managed in accordance with all requirements of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP17) concerning domestic manufacturing and trade;\niii.. not before the Secretariat has verified the prospective importing countries and the registered government-owned stocks;\niv.. raw ivory pursuant to the conditional sale of registered government-owned ivory stocks agreed at CoP12, which are 20,000 kg (Botswana), 10,000 kg (Namibia) and 30,000 kg (South Africa);\nv.. in addition to the quantities agreed at CoP12, government-owned ivory from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe registered by 31 January 2007 and verified by the Secretariat may be traded and despatched, with the ivory in paragraph (g) iv) above, in a single sale per destination under strict supervision of the Secretariat;\nvi.. the proceeds of the trade are used exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programmes within or adjacent to the elephant range; and\nvii.. the additional quantities specified in paragraph g) v) above shall be traded only after the Standing Committee has agreed that the above conditions have been met; and\nh). no further proposals to allow trade in elephant ivory from populations already in Appendix II shall be submitted to the Conference of the Parties for the period from CoP14 and ending nine years from the date of the single sale of ivory that is to take place in accordance with provisions in paragraphs g) i), g) ii), g) iii), g) vi) and g) vii). In addition such further proposals shall be dealt with in accordance with Decisions 16.55 and 14.78 (Rev. CoP16). […]’\nBotswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe\nThe requested change would result in opening up international ivory trade, and therefore does not meet the precautionary measures in Annex 4 to Res. Conf. 9.24 and is premature.\n–\n12.\nLoxodonta africana\n(African elephant)\n(populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe)\nII – I\nTransfer the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe from App. II to App. I\nBurkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Togo\nThese four populations do not meet App. I criteria and the range States in question do not agree with the uplisting.\n–\n13.\nMammuthus primigenius\n(Woolly mammoth)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nIsrael\nThe purpose of CITES is to protect species from overexploitation and extinction. Look-alike issues do not seem to be a sufficient argument for listing mammoth. Evidence for misidentification and laundering on a large scale has not been provided, and elephant and mammoth ivory dentine display unique characteristics which can be readily distinguished by a non-expert. Listing on App. II would not be proportionate with the scale of the risk posed (potentially generating numerous permits with no, or limited, conservation benefit).\n–\n14.\nLeporillus conditor\n(Greater stick-nest rat)\nI – II\nTransfer from App. I to App. II\nAustralia\nTransfer to Appendix II recommended by the AC. The species does not occur in international trade.\n+\n15.\nPseudomys fieldi praeconis\n(Shark Bay mouse)\nI – II\nTransfer from App. I to App. II\nAustralia\nTransfer to Appendix II and a nomenclature change recommended by the AC. The species does not occur in international trade.\n+\n16.\nXeromys myoides\n(False swamp rat)\nI – II\nTransfer from App. I to App. II\nAustralia\nTransfer to Appendix II recommended by the AC. The species does not occur in international trade.\n+\n17.\nZyzomys pedunculatus\n(Central rock rat)\nI – II\nTransfer from App. I to App. II\nAustralia\nTransfer to Appendix II recommended by the AC. The species does not occur in international trade.\n+\n18.\nSyrmaticus reevesii\n(Reeves’s pheasant)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nCN\nOnly the population of China meets the listing criteria for inclusion in Appendix II. Open to supporting the inclusion of the species in Appendix II, and will request the proponent to restrict the scope of the listing to the Chinese population only.\n(+)\n19.\nBalearica pavonina\n(Black crowned-crane)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nBurkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal\nAs IUCN/TRAFFIC recognises, since the species is affected by international trade and the estimated population decline may be close to and could exceed 50 % over the last 45 years, B. pavonina is likely to meet the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I and the Union will support the proposal.\n+\n20.\nDasyornis broadbenti litoralis\n(Lesser rufous bristlebird)\nTransfer from App. I to App. II\nAustralia\nThe proposal results from the CITES Periodic Review and concerns a species that is not in trade (considered as extinct, last observation in 1906).\n+\n21.\nDasyornis longirostris\n(Long-billed bristlebird)\nI – II\nTransfer from App. I to App. II\nAustralia\nThe proposal results from the CITES Periodic Review and concerns a species that is not in trade.\n+\n22.\nCrocodylus acutus\n(American crocodile)\n(population of Mexico)\nI – II\nTransfer the population of Mexico from App. I to App. II\nMexico\nSupport transfer from App. I to App. II if Mexico sets a 0 quota for specimens from the wild (source code W).\n(+)\n23.\nCalotes nigrilabris and Calotes pethiyagodai\n(Garden lizards)\n0 – I\nInclude in App. I\nSri Lanka\nBiological criteria for listing in CITES Appendices appear to be met but insufficient evidence to demonstrate that current or anticipated levels of trade are detrimental to its survival in the wild. The Union will encourage the proponent to list the two species in Appendix III, but oppose Appendix I listing. The Union is open to consider further information on listing in Appendix II if presented by the proponent.\n(–)\n24.\nCeratophora spp.\n(Horned lizards)\n0 – I\nInclude in App. I\nSri Lanka\nOppose the genus listing in Appendix I, but agree to include C. erdeleni, C. karu, and C. tennenti in Appendix I and C. stoddartii and C. aspera in Appendix II.\nBiological criteria for Appendix I are met for the three species (out of five species in the genus): C. karu, C. erdeleni and C. tennentii. Appendix II seems more warranted for C. aspera and C. stoddartii.\nThe Union will consider on the spot any further information on the proposed listing if presented by the proponent.\n(+)\n25.\nCophotis ceylanica and Cophotis dumbara\n(Pygmy lizards)\n0 – I\nInclude in App. I\nSri Lanka\nThe proposal appears to meet biological criteria; offtakes of even small numbers may have a significant impact on remaining populations. These are the only two species in this genus, and both are endemic to Sri Lanka and listed as highly threatened on Sri Lanka’s National Red List (2012).\n+\n26.\nLyriocephalus scutatus\n(Hump-nosed lizard)\n0 – I\nInclude in App. I\nSri Lanka\nSupport an Appendix II listing, since Appendix I listing criteria are not met but App. II criteria are.\n(–)\n27.\nGoniurosaurus spp.\n(Leopard geckos)\n(populations of China and Vietnam)\n0 – II\nInclude species of China and Vietnam in App. II\nChina, European Union, Vietnam\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n28.\nGekko gecko\n(Tokay gecko)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nEuropean Union, India, Philippines, United States of America\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n29.\nGonatodes daudini\n(Grenadines clawed gecko)\n0 – I\nInclude in App. I\nSaint Vincent and the Grenadines\nThe species meets the biological criteria for listing in Appendix I. International trade reported shortly after discovery of the species and still ongoing, even though collecting in the natural habitat is not allowed.\n+\n30.\nParoedura androyensis\n(Grandidier’s Madagascar ground gecko)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nEuropean Union, Madagascar\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n31.\nCtenosaura spp.\n(Spiny-tailed iguanas)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nEl Salvador and Mexico\nThe proposal meets the listing criteria; several species of the genus could become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I in the future if trade is not regulated as they have small populations, restricted areas of distribution or have experienced population declines, or a combination of these three criteria, and are highly vulnerable to either intrinsic or extrinsic factors.\n+\n32.\nPseudocerastes urarachnoides\n(Spider-tailed horned viper)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nIran\nMore information needed to demonstrate that the trade criterion is met. There is limited information available in the proposal on the extent of collection from the wild and international trade of the species (with evidence of only a small handful of individuals appearing in trade outside of its range State), and although the species is classed as ‘nationally endangered’, there is a lack of data to indicate population size, distribution, or whether the species is in decline.\n0\n33.\nCuora bourreti\n(Bourret’s box turtle)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nVietnam\nSupport transfer to App. I; a ‘critically endangered’ species that meets at least criterion C. i) in Annex 1 of Res. Conf. 9.24 and is heavily traded.\n+\n34.\nCuora picturata\n(Vietnamese box turtle)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nVietnam\nSupport transfer to App.I; a ‘Critically Endangered’ species that meets all biological criteria of Res. Conf. 9.24 for Appendix I listing and is heavily traded. The proposal is arising from a Periodic Review recommendation.\n+\n35.\nMauremys annamensis\n(Annam leaf turtle)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nVietnam\nSupport transfer to App. I; a ‘Critically Endangered’ species that it meets at least criterion C. i) in Annex 1 of Res. Conf. 9.24 and is heavily traded. The proposal is arising from a Periodic Review recommendation.\n+\n36.\nGeochelone elegans\n(Star tortoise)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nBangladesh, India, Senegal and Sri Lanka\nThe listing is proposed jointly by the majority of range States. The illegal trade is of great concern, although harvest and trade in wild specimens is already prohibited in the range States. The concerns around mis-use of source code C and potential laundering of wild specimens through captive breeding operations is already being addressed by CITES under Resolution Conf. 17.7.\n+\n37.\nMalacochersus tornieri\n(Pancake tortoise)\nII – I\nTransfer from App. II to App. I\nKenya,\nUnited States of America\nSupport to the proposal. Most recent Red List Assessment (2018) has assessed the species as ‘Critically Endangered’. Proposal seems to be proportionate to the anticipated risks to the species, which is in considerable demand from the trade sector and affected by illegal trade. Overexploitation is reported as a main factor currently affecting populations of the species. The species seems to meet the Appendix I listing criteria.\n+\n38.\nHyalinobatrachium spp., Centrolene spp., Cochranella spp., and Sachatamia spp.\n(Glass frogs)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nCosta Rica,\nEl Salvador\nThe Union could support a narrower proposal if the proponents decide to limit it to those species for which it can be demonstrated that they meet the listing criteria. However, due to lack of population data, and as reported trade occurs mostly in species of ‘Least Concern’, the inclusion in App. II of all 104 species belonging to four genera does not seem proportionate. Further information is needed on those species for which trade is most prevalent.\n(–)\n39.\nEchinotriton chinhaiensis and Echinotriton maxiquadratus\n(Spiny newts)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nChina\nThe species meet the biological criteria for listing in Appendix I. Their conservation would benefit from international protection. Even though international trade levels appear to be low, any trade in wild specimens could be detrimental to the survival of populations, as populations are extremely small and decreasing.\nEchinotriton has been split from Tylototriton (listing proposal No 41) only in 1982. Therefore, listing both genera is also appropriate on the basis of the look-alike criterion.\n+\n40.\nParamesotriton spp.\n(Asian warty newts)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nChina, European Union\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n41.\nTylototriton spp.\n(Crocodile newts)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nChina, European Union\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n42.\nIsurus oxyrinchus and Isurus paucus\n(Mako sharks)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nBangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Egypt, European Union, Gabon, Gambia, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Samoa, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Togo\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n43.\nGlaucostegus spp.\n(Guitarfishes)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nBangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, European Union, Gabon, Gambia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Monaco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Ukraine\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n44.\nRhinidae spp.\n(Wedgefishes)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nBangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, European Union, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, India, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo and Ukraine\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n45.\nHolothuria (Microthele) fuscogilva, Holothuria (Microthele) nobilis, Holothuria (Microthele) whitmaei\n(Sea cucumbers)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nEuropean Union, Kenya, Senegal, Seychelles, United States of America\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n46.\nPoecilotheria spp.\n(Ornamental spiders)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nSri Lanka, United States of America\nAs there is insufficient evidence that international trade contributes significantly to the decline of the species, the Union will encourage the range State to list the species in Appendix III, but would not oppose the listing in Appendix II, if agreed by the CoP by consensus. The Union will consider any further information provided by the proponents on the spot. There could be difficulties in implementation with regard to identification of captive-bred specimens.\n0\n47.\nAchillides chikae hermeli\n(Mindoro peacock swallowtail)\n0 – I\nEuropean Union, Philippines\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n48.\nParides burchellanus\n(Riverside swallowtail)\n0 – I\nInclude in App. I\nBrazil\nSupport the proposal. This species meets Appendix I listing criteria. The species occurs in trade numbers and, due to the small population size, any trade could be detrimental.\n+\n49.\nHandroanthus spp.,\nTabebuia spp. and\nRoseodendron spp.\n(Trumpet trees)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II with annotation #6\nBrazil\nProposal withdrawn.\nn/a\n50.\nWiddringtonia whytei\n(Mulanje Cedar)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nMalawi\nOppose unless Malawi presents evidence of international trade detrimental to the conservation of the species. The species may benefit from an Appendix III listing instead. The EU would nonetheless not oppose the listing in Appendix II in case of consensus at the CoP 18.\n(–)\n51.\nDalbergia sissoo\n(North Indian rosewood)\nII – 0\nDelete from App. II\nBangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal\nThe species is common and does not meet the biological criteria for App. II, but most likely still meets the look‐alike criterion of Res 9.24 (criterion A of Annex 2b). This proposal should also be seen in conjunction with proposed amendments to annotation #15.\n–\n52.\nDalbergia spp., Guibourtia demeusei, Guibourtia pellegriniana, Guibourtia tessmannii\n(Rosewoods, Palisanders and Bubingas)\nAmendment of Annotation #15\nII – II\nAmend annotation #15 as follows:\n‘All parts and derivatives, except:\na.. leaves, flowers, pollen, fruits, and seeds;\nb.. finished products to a maximum weight of wood of the listed species of 500 g per item;\nc.. finished musical instruments, finished musical instrument parts and finished musical instrument accessories;\nd.. parts and derivatives of Dalbergia cochinchinensis, which are covered by annotation #4;\nparts and derivatives of Dalbergia spp. originating and exported from Mexico, which are covered by annotation #6.’\nCanada, European Union\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n53.\nPericopsis elata\n(African rosewood)\nAmendment of Annotation #5\nExpand the scope of the annotation for Pericopsis elata (currently #5) to include plywood and transformed wood as follows:\n‘Logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets, plywood, and transformed wood.’\nCôte d’Ivoire, European Union\nCo-proposed by the Union.\n+\n54.\nPterocarpus tinctorius\n(African padauk)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nMalawi\nSupport preferably with an annotation (potentially the new annotation as proposed for Pericopsis elata in Prop. 53). The species meets the biological criteria for listing in Appendix II as well as the trade criterion (exploitation is a significant threat to the conservation of the species, with illegal logging having boomed over recent years to meet the Asian demand). Inclusion in Appendix II would provide leverage to combat illegal trade.\n(+)\n55.\nAloe ferox\n(Bitter aloe)\nAmendment of Annotation #4\nII – II\n‘Amend annotation #4 for Aloe ferox as follows: All parts and derivatives, except:\n[…]\nf.. finished products of Aloe ferox and Euphorbia antisyphilitica packaged and ready for retail trade.’\nSouth Africa\nSupport but propose draft decision(s) tasking the PC to monitor the impact of the proposed amendment and implementation of management measures. The criteria of Resolution 11.21 are met.\n+\n56.\nAdansonia grandidieri\n(Grandidier’s baobab)\nAmendment of Annotation #16\nII – II\n‘Seeds, fruits, oils and living plants’ to the listing of Adansonia grandidieri in Appendix II by deleting reference to live plants, so as to read: ‘#16 Seeds, fruits and oils’\nSwitzerland\nSupport. The criteria of Resolution 11.21 are met.\n+\n57.\nCedrela spp.\n(Cedars)\n0 – II\nInclude in App. II\nEcuador\nSupport only if an annotation is included in the proposal with a view to restricting CITES controls to those commodities that first appear in international trade as exports from range States (to be assessed and discussed with proponents whether e.g. the new annotation as proposed for Pericopsis elata in Prop. 53 would be appropriate). Invite Ecuador to consider restricting the scope of the proposal to the populations of the Neotropics. The taxon meets the biological as well as the trade criteria for listing in Appendix II. The Union is a minor importer worldwide.\n(+)",
  "extent": "E+W+S+N.I.",
  "status": null,
  "version": "current",
  "annotations": [
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f1",
      "text": "Whereby transformed wood is defined by HS code 44.09: Wood (including strips, friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled), continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, v‐jointed, beaded or the like) along any edges, ends or faces, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed.’"
    },
    {
      "type": "footnote",
      "label": "f2",
      "text": "This term, as used in the CITES Appendices refers to product, shipped singly or in bulk, requiring No further processing, packaged, labelled for final use or the retail trade in a state fit for being sold to or used by the general public.’"
    }
  ],
  "outstanding_effects": [],
  "provenance": {
    "source": "legislation.gov.uk",
    "source_url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/2019/1719/annex/II/division/UNION/division/1",
    "retrieved_at": "2026-11-01T15:12:33.567535+00:00"
  },
  "licence": "Open Government Licence v3.0",
  "licence_url": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/",
  "attribution": "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives."
}