Update on Brazilian Mahogany and Letter to U.S. Policy Makers
11/24/99
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Update on Brazilian Mahogany and Letter to U.S. Policy
Makers
Source: personal email
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: November 24, 1999
Byline: Margot Bass
Here's an update on the situation with big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia
macrophylla) and CITES as well as an invitation for discussion of
policy options regarding the species. Specifically, this note
touches on the following:
A) US decision against a CITES Appendix II listing for big-leaf
mahogany B) Other governments' positions on an Appendix II listing
for big-leaf mahogany
C) Mahogany on the agenda at the next CITES meeting (COP11) D)
Possible next steps for mahogany conservation E) Note on cedro
(Cedrela odorata) as an analogue to mahogany
A) US decision against a CITES Appendix II listing for big-leaf
mahogany
The United States Government decided not to propose big-leaf mahogany
for Appendix II at the next Conference of Parties (COP11) in 2000.
The deadline for proposals was November 12, 1999.
Many conservation groups had argued for a different outcome.
Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, The Humane Society of
the US, Rainforest Alliance, and Rainforest Action Network had urged
the US in March 1998 to propose the species for an Appendix II
listing at COP 11. When the US Fish and Wildlife Service requested
public comments on the issue in July, 1999, the Center for
International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Greenpeace Mexico
submitted comments supporting a listing proposal. With the US
position still undeclared in early November, twenty-three NGOs sent a
letter to Madeleine Albright and Bruce Babbitt on November 5 urging
the Administration to propose the species (the letter is posted
below). Several environmental networks distributed information about
the pending decision; an undetermined number of US citizens placed
calls and letters to President Clinton in early November recommending
that the US propose the species.
CIEL had conversations with several US Government officials and
agencies the week before the final decision was made, and the
Administration was fully apprised of the NGO position. While most
officials said that they thought the science indicates the species
merits greater protection, the Administration decided against a
proposal. We think the US decision was based on several factors:
-the US Administration was not confident a mahogany proposal would
win approval from the CITES Parties at COP11 (a 2/3 majority of votes
is needed) and did not want to risk CITES political capital on an
unsuccessful proposal; -there was disagreement amongst US agencies
about whether the species qualified for Appendix II;
-the US Administration did not want a confrontation with Brazil on
the issue; and
-the US Administration received extensive lobbying pressure from
domestic lumber and manufacturing companies, from domestic and
international forest product associations, and from Senators and
Representatives, opposing an Appendix II listing.
B) Other governments' positions on an Appendix II listing for big-
leaf mahogany
To our knowledge, no other government sponsored an Appendix II
proposal for mahogany. The next opportunity for governments to do so
is in another 3 years, in anticipation of the 12th Conference of
Parties.
When the US consulted with range states in the summer of 1999, the
governments of Brazil and Bolivia expressed official opposition to an
Appendix II listing while the governments of Costa Rica, Ecuador, and
Honduras expressed official support. During November, officials
within some of the Mesoamerican range states expressed serious
interest in sponsoring an Appendix II proposal, but apparently were
only willing to do so if the US or Brazil would be a co-sponsor.
C) Mahogany on the agenda at the next CITES meeting (COP11)
Under NGO pressure, the United States agreed in November, 1999, to
help place big-leaf mahogany on the agenda for discussion at CITES
COP11. Brazil reportedly filed the official motion. From the NGO
perspective, this motion should have been a straight forward follow-
up from COP10, where the Mahogany Working Group was created, as a
means to allow the Group to report its findings to the Parties. The
Group met once in Brasilia in June 1998, and apparently submitted its
findings to the CITES Plant Committee in June 1999.
Having mahogany on the agenda for discussion does not allow for
consideration of an Appendix II proposal, but it does allow Parties
to debate other policy options.
D) Possible next steps for mahogany conservation
With an upcoming discussion by CITES Parties on mahogany, we
encourage NGOs and scientists to debate actions that governments
and/or conservation groups could pursue to better protect the
species. The timing is also apt for this discussion as the US
Administration has expressed a strong interest in supporting
conservation efforts for big-leaf mahogany, and would like to receive
suggestions for policy alternatives.
Options that CIEL has raised or that have been recommended to us
include:
a) At COP11, Parties could discuss ways to improve implementation of
the Appendix III listings that Mexico, Costa Rica, Bolivia, and
Brazil currently have in place. TRAFFIC has already reported some of
the problems associated with the ongoing implementation.
b) At any time, other range state countries could elect to add their
own populations of mahogany to Appendix III. This would facilitate
collection of data on trade volumes and might reduce illegal trade.
c) CITES Parties and NGOs could consider ways to link the no-
detriment finding (required for exports of species listed on Appendix
II) with independent third-party certification by organizations such
as those accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council.
d) Parties could provide technical and financial assistance to help
support Latin American states protect existing parks and reserves.
e) Parties could provide funding for forest inventories in the range
states.
f) NGOs could encourage retailers and consumers to take on a
targeted boycott of uncertified or unsustainably logged mahogany and
cedro.
g) NGOs could buy existing mahogany logging concessions and turn
them over to the national government to be protected in perpetuity.
(Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy have pioneered
in such projects.) h) Range states could implement changes in their
tax structures covering forest concessions and mahogany exports so as
to create financial incentives for better management and revenues for
conservation. (Bolivia recently made some such changes in its
forestry laws with a certain degree of success).
E) Note on cedro (Cedrela odorata) as an analogue to mahogany
Scientists have brought it to our attention that cedro (Cedrela
odorata) is also in trouble because it is being selectively logged
along with mahogany.
Cedro is a timber species that is rare across the landscape and often
grows with mahogany in both Central and South America. Depending on
the level of international trade, this species may be a strong
candidate for an Appendix II listing proposal at COP12 and other
conservation measures.
In conclusion, CIEL would like to thank you for your contributions in
the effort to improve the conservation status of mahogany. We
appreciate the level of scientific input to the debate about the
Appendix II listing, and the letters, phone calls, and e-mails that
NGOs and citizens have placed to the Administration on this issue.
We hope you will continue to participate in the policy forum on
mahogany.
I will be sending out occasional updates on this issue, and am also
happy to forward on ideas that people have to the "mahogany network".
If you prefer not to receive these, please let me know. I look
forward to further communications with you.
Dear Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of the Interior
Babbitt,
We are writing to urge the Administration to propose the listing of
Swietenia macrophylla (big-leaf mahogany) in Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and
Flora (CITES), for a decision by the Conference of the CITES Parties
at its next meeting in Nairobi in April 2000.
The scientific evidence is compelling that nearly all of the big-leaf
mahogany range state populations qualify for an Appendix II listing -
they may become threatened with extinction, unless trade is subject
to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with
their survival.
Mahogany is harvested predominantly through the practice known as
selective logging, in which only mahogany and other valuable timber
species-the "precious woods"- are extracted. This practice typically
does not create conditions that foster regeneration and it results in
removal of nearly all mature mahogany trees within a population,
drastically reducing its reproductive potential. To maintain
production levels, loggers are continually moving into increasingly
remote unlogged old-growth forests, rather than harvesting within
fixed areas from regenerating stands.
Scientists have found that populations are in decline, and are
concerned that current patterns, methods and levels of logging are
unsustainable over the long term.
Mahogany logging is a major catalyst for deforestation of Neotropical
lowland forests, thereby leading to reduction of available mahogany
habitat and posing a significant threat to tropical biodiversity. As
loggers expand operations into frontier forests and protected areas,
road construction facilitates settlement by farmers and conversion of
forests for ranching and agriculture.
A review of available evidence indicates that populations of big-leaf
mahogany in Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and perhaps
Peru and Nicaragua as well, meet the Appendix II listing criteria
established at CITES COP9, in that levels and patterns of legal and
illegal harvesting in those countries for international trade cannot
be maintained in perpetuity.
Populations in Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and Costa Rica also merit
an Appendix II listing in that they could become candidates for an
Appendix I listing (threatened with extinction and affected by trade)
in the near future.
International trade plays a major role in the fate of mahogany
populations, as a large portion of the mahogany harvest - perhaps as
much as half - is destined for export. The species' high value has
led to extensive trafficking and illegal logging in parks, forest
concessions, and indigenous areas. Range countries have been unable
unilaterally to prevent these activities. New research from PROARCA
CAPAS of Guatemala, the Tropical Science Center of Costa Rica, and
the World Wildlife Fund of Washington, D.C., finds that the ratio of
illegal to legal mahogany logging in Central America is a minimum of
2:1, and may be as much as 6:1. South American countries face
similar problems.
With 146 Parties, CITES is the international community's legal
mechanism for addressing trade-related threats to the survival of a
species. As the world's largest importer, the United States has a
special responsibility to cooperate with range states under CITES to
ensure the well-being of big-leaf mahogany. As the Administration
seeks to liberalize trade in forestry products through a rapid
reduction in tariffs, it is particularly important that it
demonstrate a willingness to protect species that may be or are being
harmed by trade.
An Appendix II listing under CITES enables importing and exporting
countries to cooperate to reduce the impact of harvesting and
consumption. It provides a legal basis for exporting countries to
regulate exports in the interest of survival of the species or its
populations. Equally important, it provides a legal basis for
importing countries to monitor imports, thereby stemming illegal
harvesting and trafficking and supporting range countries in their
efforts to conserve and sustainably manage tropical forests.
In seeking an Appendix II listing, our goal is not to place big-leaf
mahogany off-limits to human use. Rather, we seek to facilitate a
shift to sustainable harvesting and trade. It is important to
understand that an Appendix II listing under CITES will not
facilitate a ban on commercial trade under Appendix I. Properly
implemented, it will preclude an Appendix I listing by limiting trade
pressure on the species to sustainable levels.
Similarly, an Appendix II listing will not motivate consumers to stop
purchasing mahogany. On the contrary, effective implementation of an
Appendix II listing would strengthen consumer confidence that
mahogany was harvested sustainably. A multilateral decision in the
highly visible and respected context of CITES would send a powerful
signal that governments are acting to maintain the health and
genetics of the species. The continuing failure to list the species
as legally mandated under CITES, however, will only increase consumer
disaffection and the risk of boycotts of the kind that have already
drastically reduced demand in some importing countries.
Implementation of an Appendix II listing will lay the foundation for
a shift in the direction of sustainability, but is not sufficient to
ensure sustainable harvesting. Economic policies, market failures
and weak law enforcement are among the factors driving unsustainable
harvesting. We encourage the Administration to continue its efforts
to explore other measures that could complement a CITES listing.
Options include certification and labeling to facilitate sustainable
harvesting, cooperation to enforce trade controls and combat illegal
harvesting, and funding of forest inventories and of pilot projects
for conservation and sustainable management.
We are eager to work with you to craft an effective approach to this
issue, and would be very pleased to discuss these matters further
with you or your colleagues.
Sincerely yours,
David R. Downes Senior Attorney, Center for International
Environmental Law
William J. Snape III Legal Director, Defenders of Wildlife Orin
Langelle Coordinator, Action for Community and Ecology in the
Rainforests of Central America
Atossa Soltani Director, Amazon Watch Antonia Juhala Director,
International Trade Program, American Lands Alliance
Erik van Lennep Executive Director, The Arctic to Amazonia Alliance
Ned Daly Director of Forest Policy, Consumer's Choice Council Rick
Spencer Director, EarthCulture Bruce Rich Director, International
Program, Environmental Defense Fund Saskia Ozinga Coordinator, Fern
(United Kingdom) Andrea Durbin Director, International Program,
Friends of the Earth- United States Ricardo Navarro President,
Friends of the Earth- El Salvador; President, Centro Salvadoreo de
Tecnologa Apropiada (El Salvador) Juraj Zamkovsky Friends of the
Earth- Slovakia John W. Grandy, Ph.D.Senior Vice President, Wildlife
and Habitat Protection, The Humane Society of the United States
Justin Ward Senior Policy Analyst, Natural Resources Defense Council
Daniel Katz Executive Director, Rainforest Alliance Jennifer Krill
Old Growth Field Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network Tim Keating
Executive Director, Rainforest Relief Reinhard Behrend Director,
Rainforest Rescue (Retted den Regenwald e.V.) (Germany) Christopher
H. Peters President, Seventh Generation Fund for Indian
Development, Inc. Dennis Schvejda Conservation Chair, Sierra Club-
New Jersey Chapter Sandy Gauntlet Indigenous Peoples' Focal Point,
Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation Project