CITES pernambuco update

[Jedidjah de Vries]

The final decision has not yet been made. That will likely take place this afternoon (November 25) Panama time at the plenary session. However, the proposal forwarded from the subcommittee does not move Paubrasilia to Apendix I. You can read the revised proposal here, with the relevant bit being:

Quote

Maintain Paubrasilia echinata in Appendix II with the following annotation which would replace current Annotation #10:

All parts, derivatives and finished products, except re-export of finished musical instruments, finished musical instrument accessories and finished musical instrument parts.

You can watch the subcommittee discussion of the proposal 

The final decision will also be livestreamed on YouTube.

 

[Shelbow]

Lets see what happens later today then.

[Shelbow]

This is the current live stream, they are on around proposal 28 at the moment as I type. Pernambuco is proposal 49.

 

 

[Shelbow]

On prop 41 now 

49 coming closer

[Shelbow]

Its quite funny watching the process of this whole thing.

[Shelbow]

Big disagreements about prop 41 so it might be a while before they get on to 49.

[David Burgess]

Might we have more leverage if we threaten to take the Panama Canal back?

[Shelbow]

On 46 now

[Shelbow]

49 is up now

[Jedidjah de Vries]

That's it folks. The proposal from above, keeping Pernambuco in Appendix II with the amended annotation was adopted.

[Shelbow]

Looks like it stays in Appendix II, interesting that no one challenged it on the floor.

[Jedidjah de Vries]

To clarify, the old annotations said:

Quote

Designates logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets, including unfinished wood articles used for the fabrication of bows for stringed musical instruments.

The new annotation that replaces it reads:

Quote

All parts, derivatives and finished products, except re-export of finished musical instruments, finished musical instrument accessories and finished musical instrument parts.

 

[Shelbow]

Good outcome for now.

[match]

Some people will probably breathe a sigh of relief. Are effects for bow makers or for the trade to be expected with this amended appendix, or rather not?

[Shelbow]

12 minutes ago, match said:

Some people will probably breathe a sigh of relief. Are effects for bow makers or for the trade to be expected with this amended appendix, or rather not?

There are a few points listed in the proposal document which may have an effect in the long term.

It depends how things are managed and how governments act on the proposals.

 

 

For example:

Directed to Parties, in particular source transit and destination Parties for Paubrasilia echinata 19.CC Parties, and in particular source, transit and destination Parties for Paubrasilia echinata, are invited to:

b) consider the registration of stockpiles of Paubrasilia echinata as appropriate;

 

Directed to governmental, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations and other entities 19.DD Governmental, intergovernmental, and non-governmental organizations and other entities, are invited to:

a) support the implementation of the listing of Paubrasilia echinata, inter alia by:

i) exploring ways to increase the traceability of finished bows, including for example, the development and implementation of a system of a unique individual marking and by sensitising producers and consumers (in particular musicians) of the status of the species

ii) work with Brazil to identify existing Paubrasilia echinata plantations within Brazil that could be considered source code A or Y to establish a sustainable supply chain

 

[JacksonMaberry]

I'm happy for my bowmaker friends and others in our community that would be impacted by any major changes in the status quo. I do hope, and I believe that the luth world has seen the writing on the wall and will continue to develop alternatives for the inevitable total loss of pernambuco as well as preservation initiatives to stave that off as long as possible 

[martin swan]

11 minutes ago, JacksonMaberry said:

I'm happy for my bowmaker friends and others in our community that would be impacted by any major changes in the status quo. I do hope, and I believe that the luth world has seen the writing on the wall and will continue to develop alternatives for the inevitable total loss of pernambuco as well as preservation initiatives to stave that off as long as possible 

I would put it slightly differently.

There is a major change in the status quo, although it's slightly hidden in the "draft decisions".

This whole near-catastrophic situation was brought about by the casualness with which bowmakers treated the 2007 Appendix II listing. There is a lot of illegal or unregistered wood in circulation and Brazil wanted to put a stop to its use, quite justifiably. They agreed at the conference (and at the very last minute) to abandon their nuclear solution in favour of a constructive approach which takes into account the fact that there are large quantities of planted/managed pernambuco about to reach maturity (most of which pre-dates the initiatives undertaken by non-Brazilian bowmakers).

It is now incumbent on new makers to use only legal/registered wood, and before the next CITES conference there needs to be a system in place whereby all new bows will carry marks to prove that they are made with legally obtained wood.

The only way to relieve pressure on wild trees is to sign up totally to a programme of rigorous enforcement and traceability for managed supply.

 

[JacksonMaberry]

16 minutes ago, martin swan said:

I would put it slightly differently.

There is a major change in the status quo, although it's slightly hidden in the "draft decisions".

This whole near-catastrophic situation was brought about by the casualness with which bowmakers treated the 2007 Appendix II listing. There is a lot of illegal or unregistered wood in circulation and Brazil wanted to put a stop to its use, quite justifiably. They agreed at the conference (and at the very last minute) to abandon their nuclear solution in favour of a constructive approach which takes into account the fact that there are large quantities of planted/managed pernambuco about to reach maturity (most of which pre-dates the initiatives undertaken by non-Brazilian bowmakers).

It is now incumbent on new makers to use only legal/registered wood, and before the next CITES conference there needs to be a system in place whereby all new bows will carry marks to prove that they are made with legally obtained wood.

The only way to relieve pressure on wild trees is to sign up totally to a programme of rigorous enforcement and traceability for managed supply.

 

Thanks, I appreciate this

[Blank face]

I assumed that it might end with a compromise and the Brazilian side tried to build up as much pressure as possible before the conference. We actually don’t know how it was negotiated behind the scene.

Hopefully the changes in the government will relieve the deforestation and destructive treatment of woods and nature a bit (at least), and possibly the outcome now has some relation to the circumstances.

Thanks to keep us updated!

[Bill Merkel]

4 hours ago, martin swan said:

needs to be a system in place whereby all new bows will carry marks to prove that they are made with legally obtained wood.

there would be a side benefit to certifying all pernambuco bows, and genuine pernambuco bows only

[Brad Dorsey]

3 hours ago, martin swan said:

…there needs to be a system in place whereby all new bows will carry marks to prove that they are made with legally obtained wood...

I am trying to imagine what sort of system would be created and how it would work.  I’m not coming up with anything.

[Dr. Mark]

1 hour ago, Brad Dorsey said:

I am trying to imagine what sort of system would be created and how it would work.  I’m not coming up with anything.

Bitbow digital pernambuco using blockchain.  Every log and stick identified and represented as a bitbow digital asset so every transaction is registered everywhere in the bitbow community.  Details to be worked out.  First one in gets rich.   Thank you.

 

[GoPractice]

4 hours ago, martin swan said:

 ( ... )

This whole near-catastrophic situation was brought about by the casualness with which bowmakers treated the 2007 Appendix II listing. There is a lot of illegal or unregistered wood in circulation and Brazil wanted to put a stop to its use, quite justifiably.

( ... )

 

There are amazing bowmakers who insisting on working on making it a viable source.

There are also many makers who will live out there lives with what they have... It is not that a hundreds of bowmakers rise up but violinist who might rely on the expertise of others. They might voice themselves. I make my own bows, can lay up carbon... but I still pleasure and enjoy in the historically made bows. 

This year was not overwhelming, but beautiful, technical work.

[martin swan]

1 hour ago, Brad Dorsey said:

I am trying to imagine what sort of system would be created and how it would work.  I’m not coming up with anything.

There are many traceability systems in use for all sorts of things. If you think about systems like Fairtrade, FSC, Organic certification, there are plenty of precedents. Even non-conflict diamonds.

The most important thing though is peer pressure. Buyers should insist that modern pernambuco bows have clear provenance, makers should insist on legal wood etc etc. If we don't want to go through this whole shitstorm in 2 years' time, everyone needs to get on board.

 

[David Burgess]

Here's a different perspective on the situation from someone who has been highly active in the International Pernambuco Conservation Initiative, and the planting of pernambuco trees:

He thinks that the pernambuco problem is insignificant, but that interests in Brazil are trying to make a big deal out of it in order to appear that they are seriously cracking down on deforestation, while drawing attention away from the vastly larger and more profitable harvesting of other rain forest woods. The money Brazil makes from pernambuco is trivial, compared to the massive amounts of money the Brazilian "mafia" makes from the illegal harvesting of woods like ipe and mahogany.

Supposedly, most of this endangered wood is consumed domestically within Brazil by the construction industry anyway, so the conspicuous effort to limit international trade is mostly window dressing.