CITES Appendix II good news

Music Industries Association, a UK-based trade body and lobbying organization, is reporting that a proposal was put forth at the Music Industry International Coalition Meeting at the winter 2019 NAMM show to exempt rosewood instruments from CITES regulatory control.

According to MIA, the formal proposal has been nominally agreed to, but will require ratification at an upcoming CITES meeting that is being held in Sri Lanka in May.

The passage of the proposal would have positive implications for guitar builders, after a CITES law was put into practice in January 2017 that placed restrictions on how rosewood could be traded across international borders. This resulted in some companies, including Fender and Larrivée, exploring rosewood alternatives. Additionally, Taylor halted production on certain rosewood models.

According to MIA, the new amendment is a "recognition by the powers that be that musical instruments were (very unfortunately) ‘collateral damage’ in the rosewood restrictions that were chiefly aimed at stopping illegal logging in the furniture industry.”

The proposal aims to: exempt finished musical instruments containing rosewood; exempt finished musical instrument parts containing rosewood; and exempt finished musical accessories containing rosewood.

That would be great. I hope the CITES group ratifies that proposal.

This is what I have been told by USDA agents in Chicago. It's great news because we have been trying to do it legally, but the CITES certificates required are only good for 6 months and last time it took 5 months to get them (that was BEFORE the government shut down) from US Fish and Wildlife.

I don't understand International law very well, but I hope this doesn't pass. Too many restrictions that were put in place to protect endangered species have been done away with, or carelessly trampled on.
Sorry, but I care more about our planet than I do about having a certain kind of wood to build my ukulele with.

Pete Howlett said:

"recognition by the powers that be that musical instruments were (very unfortunately) ‘collateral damage’ in the rosewood restrictions that were chiefly aimed at stopping illegal logging in the furniture industry.”

Click to expand...

This what luthiers and musicians have been saying all along! I don't have figures, but I would guess that less than %1 of illegally logged rosewood goes into making musical instruments and %99+ percent goes into making clunky furniture for the Far East market.

Nickie said:

I don't understand International law very well, but I hope this doesn't pass. Too many restrictions that were put in place to protect endangered species have been done away with, or carelessly trampled on.
Sorry, but I care more about our planet than I do about having a certain kind of wood to build my ukulele with.

Click to expand...

Hard to disagree with that.

this is just delaying the inevitable.

"According to MIA, the new amendment is a "recognition by the powers that be that musical instruments were (very unfortunately) ‘collateral damage’ in the rosewood restrictions that were chiefly aimed at stopping illegal logging in the furniture industry.”"

While they should be applauded for trying to save rosewood, the planet and its animals, one wonders how intelligent these people are if they didn't realise the ramifications on industries other then the furniture industry prior to putting all rosewoods on CITES.

If CITES makes it more difficult to create sustainable growth, then in my opinion what's the point, creating restrictions is only part of it. I agree with Bill and Beau, the rules should be made for the future, not just the present, which is just too shortsighted. I also agree with Sequoia that musical instruments are a very small amount of the wood consumed in the word and should be exempted.

---

9 tenor cutaway ukes, 5 acoustic bass ukes, 11 solid body bass ukes, 8 mini electric bass guitars (Total: 33)

• Donate to The Ukulele Kids Club, they provide ukuleles to children in hospital music therapy programs. www.theukc.org
• Member The CC Strummers: YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/CCStrummers/video, Facebook: www.facebook.com/TheCCStrummers

FYI - Here's an email I received the other day from the Australian CITES Management Authority.

Dear Stakeholder



I am writing to provide you with information on the 18th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP18) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), being held in Sri Lanka from 23 May-3 June 2019.



CITES is an international treaty that aims to ensure international trade in animals and plants does not threaten the survival of the species. The listing of a species under CITES means that import and export of that species is regulated through a permitting system. It does not affect domestic trade or use. More information on CITES is included at the end of this email, and at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildlife-trade/cites/cop18.



At CoP18, countries will be voting to change the international protection for over 300 species. We have identified that proposed changes to the regulation of the following timber producing species may have implications for your business/industry:



· Cedrela species – include in Appendix II (proposal document only available in Spanish at this time)

· Dalbergia species, Gibourtia demeusi, Gibourtia pellegriniana, Gibourtia tessmanii – Amend existing annotation #15

· Dalbergia sissoo – Delete from Appendix II

· Pericopsis elata – Amend existing annotation

· Pterocarpus tinctorius – Include in Appendix II

· Widdringtonia whytei – include in Appendix II



The full set of proposals to be considered at CoP18 can be found at https://cites.org/eng/cop/18/prop/index.php, with additional agenda items at https://cites.org/eng/cop/18/doc/index.php.



The Australian Government wants to know what these changes might mean for you. We invite any comments you wish to provide on these proposals, in particular on any impacts you would anticipate on your business/industry from the proposed change in regulation.



Information that would be particularly useful to us includes:



· average number/volume of specimens exported and/or imported per year

· estimated average harvest levels (for species that are harvested within Australia)

· average number of shipments of specimens exported and/or imported per year

· average annual revenue earned from import and/or export by your business/industry

· trends in the import and/or export of these species

· number of staff members involved in the export and/or import of these species.



We are aware that some of the proposals are still in languages other than English. English translations should be uploaded to the CITES web site in coming weeks. If you are unable to provide comment by the due date because translation is not yet available, please let us know.



Comments are due by 22 March 2019 and will help inform Australia’s negotiating positions at the Conference of the Parties meeting. Please send any comments to the Wildlife Trade and Biosecurity Branch, GPO Box, Canberra 2601 or by email to AustraliaCITESCoP18@environment.gov.au. For information on how your comments will be handled, see http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildlife-trade/cites/cop18.



If you have any queries or wish to discuss CITES CoP18 issues further, please contact AustraliaCITESCoP18@environment.gov.au.



Yours sincerely



Australian CITES Management Authority

Nickie said:

I don't understand International law very well, but I hope this doesn't pass. Too many restrictions that were put in place to protect endangered species have been done away with, or carelessly trampled on.
Sorry, but I care more about our planet than I do about having a certain kind of wood to build my ukulele with.

Click to expand...

I hate laws and restrictions as much as the next person, but Nickie’s comment has me wondering whether a seemingly sensible revision will lead to a loophole that the dishonest and unscrupulous will take advantage of. I really do like Rosewood but after we have felled the last tree we’ll have to get used to an alternative, maybe we should leave the trees in the ground for a few decades more (to let stocks rebuild to sustainable levels) and get used to using something else now.

It’s an unfortunate fact of life that too many folk in the World are greedy and all of us are, to a lesser or greater extent, ignorant of the damage we do to the world - a big percentage are uncaring too and they are the ones who will use loopholes. In an overpopulated world it’s a fact that just being alive and consuming the ‘necessities’ of life isn’t good for the planet’s wellbeing, besides influencing others to do similar the best anyone can do is to try and reduce damage by living in as sustainable way as possible. That’s easy said and hard to do, I do what’s practical now and work at the rest when I can - that’s imperfect but it’s heading in the right direction. I’m not sure but just maybe not using Rosewood at all could be one of those steps in the right direction?

To me there’s logic to what Nickie has said, but that’s not to say that the issue is at all clear cut and simple because it is far from that.

CITES has exceptions for approved sources.

a big percentage are uncaring too and they are the ones who will use loopholes

Click to expand...

The "uncaring ones" aren't worried about loopholes, they will bypass the system completely. The "uncaring ones" still trade in ivory despite the worldwide ban and elephants are still being killed as a result. Rhinos are on the brink of extinction despite international laws forbidding the use of their horns. Exotic animals are still being smuggled for uncaring collectors......
The solution is complex and requires a complete change in the way we (as a planet) think of our resources and how we manage them? The CITES ban on rosewood has been blowing in the wind for years but, in that time, how many furniture makers and instrument makers have contributed to planting new rosewood forests for future generations?
If we as instrument makers want to continue using fine woods, we must be seen to be contributing to a solution, not just moaning about the difficulties we might face.
Miguel

lauburu said:

The "uncaring ones" aren't worried about loopholes, they will bypass the system completely. The "uncaring ones" still trade in ivory despite the worldwide ban and elephants are still being killed as a result. Rhinos are on the brink of extinction despite international laws forbidding the use of their horns. Exotic animals are still being smuggled for uncaring collectors......
The solution is complex and requires a complete change in the way we (as a planet) think of our resources and how we manage them? The CITES ban on rosewood has been blowing in the wind for years but, in that time, how many furniture makers and instrument makers have contributed to planting new rosewood forests for future generations?
If we as instrument makers want to continue using fine woods, we must be seen to be contributing to a solution, not just moaning about the difficulties we might face.
Miguel

Click to expand...

As an outsider looking in at the instrument making community its hard for me to see what individual builders can do both whilst they are in competition with each other and as individual acts of significance. Ultimately builders satisfy customers so either the customer must loose the choice to specify a particular wood from all builders or they will likely go to one who will give them what they want.

Society has total bans on many things and light Policing of them works well enough to significantly change behaviour for the better. I don’t know the answer on this complex issue but have sympathy for a total ban on the use of Rosewood for all new manufacture. That’s a simple rule that’s easy to understand if harsh to some - like a lot of other rules and laws but they’re better than the alternative - after that it’s all about sensible interpretation of the law and sanctions (only) being enforced when it’s in the public interest to do so. To see that broad concept in action drive down any Motorway in the U.K., our national speed limit is 70 mph but most of us drive a bit faster than that at times (so technically breaking the law). However a smaller percentage deliberately push beyond 80 mph and do so aware that they have entered the range of significant infringement that will see them prosecuted when caught - in general prosecution is reserved for those that deliberately and significantly flout the law.