Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 10PRETORIA339, SOUTH AFRICA'S RESPONSE TO U.S. CITES PROPOSALS

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #10PRETORIA339.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
10PRETORIA339 2010-02-18 14:11 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Pretoria
VZCZCXRO6740
PP RUEHAST RUEHBZ RUEHDH RUEHDU RUEHHM RUEHJO RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHMR
RUEHPB RUEHPOD RUEHRN RUEHSL RUEHTRO
DE RUEHSA #0339 0491411
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 181411Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1277
INFO RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNSAD/SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHTN/AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN PRIORITY 7589
RUEHDU/AMCONSUL DURBAN PRIORITY 1653
RUEHJO/AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG PRIORITY 9942
UNCLAS PRETORIA 000339 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
OES/ENRC FOR LLOYD GAMBLE; AF/S FOR SUSAN WALKE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV AORC CITES KSCA UNEP
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA'S RESPONSE TO U.S. CITES PROPOSALS 
 
REF: STATE 06668 
 
 1. (U)  Environment, Science and Technology Officer 
delivered reftel points on U.S. CITES proposals to Elise 
Haber, Deputy Director for Conservation in the Department of 
International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and Sonja 
Meintjes, Deputy Director for Biodiversity Compliance in the 
Department of Water and Environmental Affairs (DWEA) on 
February 3.  EST Officer and SAG officials discussed each of 
the U.S. proposals and the SAG followed up with written 
responses to U.S. questions, summarized below.  Please note 
that the South African responses are not final official 
positions; they are preliminary views on the U.S. proposals. 
 
2. (U) TEXT OF SOUTH AFRICAN RESPONSE 
 
-- Sharks.  South Africa recognizes that the over 
exploitation of some marine species for commercial fisheries 
is becoming a serious problem; however sharks are protected 
in South African waters under the Marine Living Resources Act 
which prohibits the commercial fishing of sharks.  South 
Africa is sympathetic to the U.S. proposals, however we are 
concerned that the proposal as it stands contains elements 
that should be dealt with by the various fisheries bodies of 
the FAO and that U.S. concerns are not necessarily trade 
issues that would fall under CITES. 
 
-- Corals.  South Africa acknowledges that international 
trade in pink and red corals could eventually have a negative 
impact on the survival of the species in the wild if the 
trade is not properly monitored.  South Africa is sympathetic 
toward this proposal and will base its decision on the 
information supplied in the proposal. 
 
-- Transfer of Polar Bear from CITES Appendix II to Appendix 
I.  South Africa believes that the polar bear does not meet 
the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I.  South 
Africa supports the principle of sustainable use of natural 
resources as is practiced in Canada where aboriginal people 
are allowed to benefit from the sustainable trade in polar 
bears.  An Appendix I listing might affect this sustainable 
trade negatively, and this will have a negative impact on the 
livelihoods of the aboriginal people.  South Africa shares 
the concerns of the U.S. regarding the shrinkage of polar 
bear habitat, but we are not convinced that this contributes 
to an increase in international trade in polar bear products. 
 
-- Deletion of Bobcat from Appendix II.  South Africa has 
previously supported the U.S. proposal on the bobcat (at 
COP-14), but the proposal was not accepted by the Parties due 
to the identification and look-alike problem of skins in 
trade.  South Africa notes that the U.S. has worked on the 
identification issue and will most likely support the 
proposal to delete the bobcat from CITES Appendix II. 
 
-- Snake Trade and Conservation Management. South Africa will 
support the U.S. proposal for a snake trade workshop 
especially since the workshop will be sponsored by the U.S. 
and will thus not have financial implications for the 
Secretariat. 
 
END TEXT OF SOUTH AFRICAN RESPONSE. 
 
3. (U) The South African delegation to CITES COP-15 has not 
been finalized and is currently pending ministerial approval. 
Confirmed delegation members at this time include Ms. Sonja 
Meintjes of DWEA/CITES Management Authority 
(smeintjes@deat.gov.za) and Ms. Elise Haber of DIRCO 
(habere@foreign.gov.za). 
GIPS 
QGIPS