Pernambuco survey - CITES - Proposal to move from Appendix II to Appendix I

[Blank face]

12 hours ago, martin swan said:

https://americanorchestras.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Musical-Instrument-Pernambuco-Statement-9-15-2022.pdf

Though I think it misses the point, which is that the Brazilian proposal should be seen in the context of other social justice agendas - clearly CITES is not the right forum to adjudicate on such matters,

The German statement is more or less a translation of this. It lists a lot of reasonable arguments, but doesn't support any evidence that pernambuco is not endangered nor that the reason therefore is not widespread illegal harvesting or trade.

In opposite I think that both the American and German papers are trying to take the Brazilian concerns very serious and are searching for a compromise. Don't know if claims about hidden agendas can be really helpfull in this context. These might be inner-Brazilian arguments and to get part of them won't help much the interests of musicians, makers and dealers IMO.

[martin swan]

9 minutes ago, Blank face said:

The German statement is more or less a translation of this. It lists a lot of reasonable arguments, but doesn't support any evidence that pernambuco is not endangered nor that the reason therefore is not widespread illegal harvesting or trade.

 

That's the problem with their approach - they have taken the Brazilian proposal at face value.

Why doesn't the Brazilian proposal acknowledge the 1.5 million trees planted by FunBrasil or the 450,000 planted by VerdeBrasil? Because it undermines their case ...

They also admit that pau-brasil regenerates easily.

This is a proposal to list on APPENDIX 1. This is a very serious step and it's incumbent on the Brazilians to prove their case. They haven't done this.

Pernambuco as a species is not endangered. Wild pernambuco habitat is endangered, but none of that is attributable to bow-making.

[Blank face]

1 hour ago, martin swan said:

That's the problem with their approach - they have taken the Brazilian proposal at face value.

Maybe that's the only way to get out of the circular argumentation, as long as the Cites commision does it, too?

[martin swan]

2 minutes ago, Blank face said:

Maybe that's the only way to get out of the circular argumentation, as long as the Cites commision does it, too?

I think we're the only ones having a circular argument 

 

[HoGo]

1 hour ago, martin swan said:

Pernambuco as a species is not endangered. Wild pernambuco habitat is endangered, but none of that is attributable to bow-making.

In this context even elephants are not endangered as species, ZOO's have plenty of them and new are born in ZOOs regularly. The problem of poaching and overharvesting is so multifaceted that no two groups of people will agree on everything. If the pernambuco gets highest level of protection, then the wild habitats will get it as well and further deforestation and colonization of those habitats will be more likely stopped (or at least slowed down). If you consider pernambuco easily regenerated then develpoers can argue they need the area an will plant some new trees elsewhere to compensate the loss of habitat.

I know the bowmakers may not be the main reason why the trees are cut (in the past most of the forests were simply burned to clear land for agriculture and later towns) but with high prices of certain exotic species these days aimed poachng of the trees for profit is real. How can you be 100% sure your piece of pernambuco is legally sourced? Same as with ivory... there is still so much "pre-ban" elephant ivory being sold in the US decades after the ban... some guys must have had warehouses full of legal ivory before ban OR...   Even some of the "sustainable" lumber certification systems are quite questionable. They are likely more of a marketing product than real protection of forests.

 

[martin swan]

2 minutes ago, HoGo said:

If the pernambuco gets highest level of protection, then the wild habitats will get it as well and further deforestation and colonization of those habitats will be more likely stopped (or at least slowed down). 

Pernambuco already enjoys the highest level of protection in Brazil as it's illegal to cut it or sell it - it doesn't grow in any other country. It's also illegal to export it, and Brazil have unilaterally stopped all exports of finished bows. All Brazilian workshops have already switched production to ipé, so Brazil has effectively killed the black market.

With the best will in the world, I can't see how CITES can make any difference to this situation, and without a mechanism for certifying planted/propogated wood, IPCI and other conservation bodies will withdraw their efforts.

[martin swan]

17 hours ago, Shelbow said:

@martin swan have you tried any bows made from Camel Thorn? Any opinion if you have?

No, but would love to ... do you have any experience with it?

 

 

[Shelbow]

19 minutes ago, martin swan said:

No, but would love to ... do you have any experience with it?

 

 

Not first hand no. I only know that supposedly Gilles Nehr sometimes uses it and a few other makers. Apparently it can be quite good. Espen sell blanks of it, I've been meaning to buy one.

https://shop.espen.de/en/advanced_search_result.php?categories_id=0&keywords=Camel&inc_subcat=1

 

[MeyerFittings]

Several years ago I created a Master List with the US Fish and Wildlife Dept. using notarized photos of my saved stocks of wood that were under danger of being affected by, or already were protected by CITIES.  This process was indeed a PITA to accomplish, finding  old invoices for Rosewood bought in the 1970s or bills of sale from the 80s for pernambuco sticks and boards that I  bought from bow makers.  From that Master I am supposed to get "clones" that allow me to sell portions of this register, with the certification of this wood travelling with it and included in the finish product. I did all of this with the help of some higher-ups in the USFW. 

Now this may be all for naught, I don't know yet, but will certainly find out.. My understanding though is that since this is all by the book and paid for, the fact that my wood is certified as pre-CITIES designation means that I am OK to sell. All of this was designed for large wood dealers so there had to be some tweaking for small timers like myself looking at their supplies and facing the fact that health and abilities don't last for us all equally or fairly, and the wood needs to be utilized. 

BTW there is at least one one pernambuco grove of 20 year old trees growing for harvest in Hawaii.  

[mezzopiano]

And this is how the story ends, at least for now.

Citing from https://www.thestrad.com/news/future-of-pernambuco-decided-at-cites-convention/15818.article

"The Brazilian wood will remain on Appendix II with modified wording, rather than being moved up to Appendix I"

"The decision keeps pernambuco on Appendix II and revises Annotation #10 to require CITES permits for ‘All parts, derivatives and finished products, except re-export of finished musical instruments, finished musical instrument accessories and finished musical instrument parts.’ When the listing takes effect in 90 days, initial shipments of finished bows, and pernambuco in all forms, from Brazil will require CITES permits. Finished bows that are ‘re-exported’, i.e., are crossing a border after their initial shipment from Brazil, remain exempt from the CITES permit requirement."

 

Edit: just realised the discussion has moved to this thread:

 

[christian bayon]

Thanks to the incredible energy of french bow makers Edwin Clement and Arthur Dubroca who have been able, through French Gouvernement, then European Parliament, to reverse the decision of Brazilian demand .