To list or not to list? Arguments for and against listing Harpagophytum species on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

Abstract

Botswana, together with other range states, Namibia and South Africa, that is, countries exporting and trading in devil’s claw, was approached by Germany to try to argue for listing the devil’s claw on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) at CITES COP11 in April, 2000 in Nairobi, Kenya. The focal points for CITES (flora) in the range states discovered that there were still gaps in the knowledge of the population dynamics of the plant to agree with the suggestion by Germany. In addition to this knowledge gap, livelihoods of poor and marginalised communities in these countries depended on the devil’s claw trade for sustenance. The proposal for listing was therefore unsuccessful. Both exporting and importing countries were then tasked with looking at this matter for finalisation at subsequent CITES COP meetings. This article reviews the arguments by both importing and exporting countries for the proposal to list or not to list t he devil’s claw on Appendix II of CITES. It also outlines the chronology of events between COP11 when the proposal was made to COP13 when all the parties came to an amicable conclusion on the matter. It lays emphasis on lessons to be learnt for application to similar cases in the future. Key words: Devil’s claw, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), Harpagophytum