Kingdom to seek CITES protection for Siamese Rosewood

Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Thailand will ask members of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to list Siamese Rosewood as a plant in need of strict trade and export controls.

newsjs

Thailand is believed to be home to the world's only remaining Siamese Rosewood forests.

The request will be made at the 16th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in Bangkok on March 3-14. It will be the first time the Kingdom has requested that Siamese Rosewood be listed in Appendix II of the convention.

About 2,000 environmental experts and officials from 170 countries are expected to attend the event.

The participants will vote on the regulations governing different types of wildlife, the procedures that members must follow in order to protect species and guard against smuggling, offer help to members in academic fields and specify punishments for those who do not follow the convention.

Siamese Rosewood is not necessarily threatened with extinction, but the Kingdom believes trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilisation incompatible with its survival.

Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation director-general Manopat Huamuangkaew said the current Rosewood forests are facing a crisis due to smuggling of the timber.

The surviving Siamese Rosewood forests are situated in Surin province's Panom Dongrak Wildlife Sanctuary and Ubon Ratchatani's Phujongnayoy National Park, as well as in areas around the Preah Vihear Temple near the Cambodian border.

It was estimated that 300,000 Siamese Rosewood trees were left in Thai forests in 2005. Just six years later, this estimate had declined drastically to 80,000-100,000 trees.

"It is important [that the species] be conserved as a world heritage," he said.

The department will also propose that Siamese and saltwater crocodiles in captive breeding in Thailand be moved from CITES' Appendix I, which comprises species threatened with extinction, to Appendix II.

Manopat said Thailand has developed expertise in effective conserving and breeding of crocodiles, and could breed them for trading purposes.

Assoc Prof Parnthep Ratanakorn, dean of veterinary science at Mahidol University, said if the members of the convention endorse Thailand's proposal to downgrade Siamese and saltwater crocodiles to Appendix II, local crocodile farms would be able to generate income from exporting crocodile skin.

Manopat said a proposal to regulate illegal trade in ivory and Rhino horn would also be submitted to the conference to prevent smuggling or product laundering through Thailand.

The government will also suggest that relevant agencies amend the 1992 Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, which is still in force, to include greater penalties and cover species in Appendix I, as well as to appoint the Commerce Ministry to force ivory-business operators to register and list their products to make enforcement more effective.

The smuggling of wildlife and plants remains a major problem, ruining the environment and depleting natural resources, especially wildlife and products smuggled from other countries into Thailand such as ivory, tiger parts, rhino horns, pangolins, bears, monkeys and birds. Thailand is known as a hub for smuggling wildlife.

During the past five years, state environmental agencies have arrested many offenders, particularly wildlife smugglers. There have been more than 3,000 arrests with exhibits of more than 50,000 seized wild animals and carcasses.

Unfortunately, the situation has not improved, as wildlife smuggling continues and is now related to the transnational drug and arms trades, Manopat said.

CITES has three appendices

Appendix I lists animals and plants threatened with extinction in which trade is prohibited except for educational research and propagation purposes.

Appendix II refers to protected animals and plants for which strict measures and monitoring systems are needed to ensure that numbers do not decline.

Appendix III refers to animals and plants that are totally protected, for which a member country has asked other CITES parties to assist in controlling trade.

-- The Nation 2013-02-16

I'm sure many of those involved in, or attending such conventions have good intention, and a genuine interest in preservation of fast depleting exotic flora and fauna - but, these illegal markets are driven by greed, corruption and poverty, so I'm not sure how easy it will be to implement truly effective measures against their demise.

It's not all about export, either - there is a huge domestic consumption of such 'products' that I have, and do witness personally on a daily basis - certainly in this remote village where I spend half a Year every Year, and in this Country as a whole.

The remote farming villages on the Cambodian borders are usually outside of the jurisdiction of the tessaban, and therefore forgotten - full of poverty, and hold very little in the way of education or prospects for the vast majority of their inhabitants. Much of the budgets that do filter their way there - to develop and enrich village life are too often 'appropriated' blatently by the village chiefs and their cronies, who don't seem to give much of a shit about anything else, and so it passes on down the line - people see their 'peers' at it, and are cultured to turn a blind eye, so they want their slice aswell, and are usually afforded it to retain the lop sided status quo.

Where I live, I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice. If you run over an animal here, or see a dead animal on the street - look back after five minutes - gone, beit dog, cat, rat, snake - whatever. Many people in these villages are stealing wood to survive - aswell as decimating a whole host of natural herb woods. They are taking all the risks, but aren't making the millions their exploiters are. I think it would be quite surprising (or maybe not) who is actually making the big money, or at least a proportion of it from these activities.

The people who really make me sick and need to be stopped are the very people with education, money and a choice - they are the usually the final recipients and consumptives of all these illegal trades. Supply and demand. I know of doctors, police, rangers who all come here to buy and eat the exotic wildlife they are payed to protect in the first place. Monkies, huge lizards and snakes, birds. Same with the wood - here there are a few, well known guys making furniture, doors, window frames, etc, out of illegal woods, and I have personally seen police and park rangers ordering, and buying such products for use in their houses. Needless to say, the guys chopping the trees down and making very little money - just enough to feed their families and stay on the breadline sometimes get grassed up and busted - but the guys making the big money - never.

Rosewood has been huge business for Years, and the sums of money at the top of the food chain are enormous. As the quantity of the wood depletes, so the price will become even more lucrative. These woods are shipped around Thailand, aswell as out over very well trodden and established routes, under the watchful and payed off eyes of the people employed to prevent such illegal activities, and usually at the behest of the people paying the wages in the first place, so how are they meant to be stopped ?

This article only serves to show a very small part of what is a massive, perpetuated and controlled / encouraged problem, and is shadowed by our own Planetary decimation by the industrial complex, and our own indoctrinated consumptive traits, and dispassionate, infinite greed of finite resources.

Edited February 16, 201313 yr by Ackybang

I have a couple of vintage classical guitars made from the now unavailable Brazilian Rosewood. I understand the Indian rosewood is now being decimated.

Not sure if the Siamese Rosewood is a good tone wood for guitar but with the alternatives for furniture now in sustainable woods and synthetics,composites,it is important to save these last stands!

There are very few reasons why the poacher would seek protection for the game.

They all begin with "m" and rhyme with honey

Ackybang, thanks for a very relevant description of what you see on the edge of the forest: how cultural acceptance, rural poverty and criminal hierarchy/local elites are at the center of Thailand's national problem of (enforcing) wildlife protection. The local policeman caught at Kaeng Kracharn is just one recent example of what goes on. We all know the lack of teeth the authorities have to tackle this (esp. when authorities themselves are in the game!)

If we also consider the way that regional and global smuggling networks use Thailand and Bangkok as some kind of grand central station, the near impossibility of the enforcement task becomes apparent. I fear it will continue to be a losing battle by Thailand to meet the goals set out in the CITES convention. Why? First, because the demand for products made illegally from flora and fauna continues, locally and around the world. Fixing this requires education and mindset changes - doesn't happen overnight. Second, because there are far too many Thais cashing in from both the national and international aspects of wildlife crime. As long as they know they can continue to get away with it, the whole 'industry' will keep rolling on. Fixing this requires huge increases in enforcement funding, willingness to go after local elites and some extemely efficient international cooperation - all these are areas in which Thailand has an extemely poor track record.

However there are still plenty of dedicated people inside Thailand's wildlife enforcement agencies, as well as those from NGOs doing great work in Thailand and in the region. They need as much support as they can get!

Edited February 17, 201313 yr by bluegum

Thailand has consostantly ignored its obligations under CITES and now seeks help (money?). Perhaps they should look at the Tiger Temple, Si Racha Zoo and see what tey have allowed to continue since they signed up for this.

They could stop cutting it down first

Unfortunately the validity of this might evaporate if some traditional Chinese medicine expert claims the wood is an excellent impotence treatment. That seems to be enough to ignore CITES in other species.

I'm sure many of those involved in, or attending such conventions have good intention, and a genuine interest in preservation of fast depleting exotic flora and fauna - but, these illegal markets are driven by greed, corruption and poverty, so I'm not sure how easy it will be to implement truly effective measures against their demise.... [edited]

A very illuminating and well thought-out post, Ackybang. Respect to you.

You are right to cast doubt on the efficacy of CITES. Crucially, it covers only transnational trade, as you point out. The process itself has deep flaws, since the debate over which species will be listed is often the object of coercion by commercial interests.

Nevertheless, it is the only international treaty that concerns itself directly with species preservation. For that, most conservationist-types offer it grudging respect. It is one of the few arenas where pressure can be brought to bear. The to-and-fro over elephant ivory is a case in point. Trade in ivory is now forbidden.

Mark Jones offered this piece on the BBC in 2010:

... at times on the floor of last month's conference in Doha, Qatar, one

had the impression that the arguments and outcomes had more to do with

protecting commercial interests than protecting wildlife.

The process of decision making has become intensely political. Parties

choose to use scientific evidence to support their positions when it

suits them, and refute the validity of the science when it doesn't.

Parties also use procedural technicalities to their political advantage. At

times, during a heated debate, the conference resembles the bearpit of a

national parliament.

Countries with vested interests in particular issues often send large delegations and high-ranking

politicians and officials in order to persuade other parties to side

with them on crucial votes.

Several species of Madagascan plants, Latin American amphibians, and

reptiles have received CITES listings restricting international trade.

The unsung Satanic beetle from Bolivia gained an Appendix 2 listing to protect it from unscrupulous collectors.

Protection for many other species has been strengthened, including antelopes,

rhinos, tigers, snakes and freshwater turtles; and the conference

eventually rejected proposals from Tanzania and Zambia to be allowed to

sell off their elephant ivory stockpiles.

The conference operates on a budget of around $6m - not much more than the value of some of the yachts moored in Doha's bay outside the conference centre.

Perhaps what CITES needs is a bigger budget, sharper teeth, and some way of taking some of the politics and vested

interests out of its proceedings.

The protection of many species affected by trade requires international cooperation and protection, because they are captured in one country, transported through others, and consumed in others still.

If CITES won't provide this international protection, who will?

It's worth a read and a ponder. Readers can see the rest here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8606011.stm

Edited February 27, 201313 yr by DeepInTheForest

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

Forests can be managed sustainably and still provide income to local groups, as has been demonstrated in many places.

Mexico’s community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~brayd/mexicos_community_managed_forests.pdf

New research shows community-managed forests have lower rates of deforestation than protected areas:

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/08/30/new-research-shows-community-managed-forests-have-lower-rates-of-deforestation-than-protected-areas/

The Rainforest Alliance is helping indigenous communities in Peru's Madre de Dios region to adopt sustainable forestry, strengthening the protection of their communal forests while improving their standard of living:

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/multimedia/peru-community-forestry

Edited February 28, 201313 yr by DeepInTheForest

Thai elephants are missing a trick here in their fight to save themselves from the ivory trade.

Perhaps if they changed their name to Siamese Rosewood.........

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

Forests can be managed sustainably and still provide income to local groups, as has been demonstrated in many places.

Mexicos community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~brayd/mexicos_community_managed_forests.pdf

New research shows community-managed forests have lower rates of deforestation than protected areas:

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/08/30/new-research-shows-community-managed-forests-have-lower-rates-of-deforestation-than-protected-areas/

The Rainforest Alliance is helping indigenous communities in Peru's Madre de Dios region to adopt sustainable forestry, strengthening the protection of their communal forests while improving their standard of living:

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/multimedia/peru-community-forestry

All sounds great. Thailand cut down the forests years ago and created rice paddys. They are just fighting over the scraps now.

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

Sorry but that seems to be a remarkably blinkered comment - you son't seem to have heard of sustainable forestry.

THis may or may not be the answer here....either way we are not talking of "one tree" but an entire eco-system of which the tree is a part. the most obvious money-making idea would be eco-tourism or sustainable extraction - I don't know if either is possible in this case but there are alternatives.

Chopping down trees has a direct impact on the local land - flooding being the most obvious, if locals become aware that when felling timber they are in fact pulling the rug from under their own feet you are halfway there. Their environment is more valuable when it is still in existence than when it is destroyed or sold. locals may be able to live of a sustainable timber supply, but they won't get long-term earnings if greedy outsiders come in a rape the lot.

Edited February 28, 201313 yr by wilcopops

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

Sorry but that seems to be a remarkably blinkered comment - you son't seem to have heard of sustainable forestry.

THis may or may not be the answer here....either way we are not talking of "one tree" but an entire eco-system of which the tree is a part. the most obvious money-making idea would be eco-tourism or sustainable extraction - I don't know if either is possible in this case but there are alternatives.

Chopping down trees has a direct impact on the local land - flooding being the most obvious, if locals become aware that when felling timber they are in fact pulling the rug from under their own feet you are halfway there. Their environment is more valuable when it is still in existence than when it is destroyed or sold. locals may be able to live of a sustainable timber supply, but they won't get long-term earnings if greedy outsiders come in a rape the lot.

Yes, great. The major forests of Thailand disappeared years ago. What is left are in national parks.

ipso facto, if the Thais dont illegally cut down any more rosewood, there is none for sale.

I bought a stunning piece in my naivety 10 years ago, at a shop on the property of a major international retailer. After the event, it turned out, it had been cut and prepared in the local prison

Not one of my prouder moments.

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

Forests can be managed sustainably and still provide income to local groups, as has been demonstrated in many places.

Mexicos community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~brayd/mexicos_community_managed_forests.pdf

New research shows community-managed forests have lower rates of deforestation than protected areas:

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/08/30/new-research-shows-community-managed-forests-have-lower-rates-of-deforestation-than-protected-areas/

The Rainforest Alliance is helping indigenous communities in Peru's Madre de Dios region to adopt sustainable forestry, strengthening the protection of their communal forests while improving their standard of living:

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/multimedia/peru-community-forestry

All sounds great. Thailand cut down the forests years ago and created rice paddys. They are just fighting over the scraps now.

Although massively under threat, Thailand has about 25 to 30 % forest cover.......logging was banned in the late eighties. encroachment by agriculture, is a problem as is illegal logging. After WW2 till the 80s the Army denuded vast areas in order to reduce hiding places for insurgents.

there is a replanting program but what is plan=ted and what is really needed aren't necessarily the same thing. Planting monocultures of teak is not really re-planting forests.

Edited February 28, 201313 yr by wilcopops

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

Forests can be managed sustainably and still provide income to local groups, as has been demonstrated in many places.

Mexicos community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~brayd/mexicos_community_managed_forests.pdf

New research shows community-managed forests have lower rates of deforestation than protected areas:

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/08/30/new-research-shows-community-managed-forests-have-lower-rates-of-deforestation-than-protected-areas/

The Rainforest Alliance is helping indigenous communities in Peru's Madre de Dios region to adopt sustainable forestry, strengthening the protection of their communal forests while improving their standard of living:

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/multimedia/peru-community-forestry

All sounds great. Thailand cut down the forests years ago and created rice paddys. They are just fighting over the scraps now.

Although massively under threat, Thailand has about 25 to 30 % forest cover.......logging was banned in the late eighties. encroachment by agriculture, is a problem as is illegal logging. After WW2 till the 80s the Army denuded vast areas in order to reduce hiding places for insurgents

By now all logging of rosewood is by definition probably illegal.

the only place left to cut it on commercial volume is in the parks.

So the issue is entirely internal. Unless of course there are hords of rosewood cutters infiltrating Thailand with their cunning smuggling plan.

Edited February 28, 201313 yr by Thai at Heart

"I see people going out into the forests and jungles everyday to find food, and they come back with an array of exotic birds and animals - nothing is spared, and you can't even try to educate them about it - it's just food to them, and they can't afford to have a choice" - I see your point but there ARE choices.......most conservation projects are fully aware of this sort of thing and take it into account. Contrary to popular perception, and depending on each local situation it is usually possible to include locals in any conservation schemes in such a way that they make a sustainable and long term income out of them.

Fauna is one thing.

It's hard to make a long term income out of a tree, if you don't cut it down

Forests can be managed sustainably and still provide income to local groups, as has been demonstrated in many places.

Mexicos community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes:

http://www2.fiu.edu/~brayd/mexicos_community_managed_forests.pdf

New research shows community-managed forests have lower rates of deforestation than protected areas:

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/08/30/new-research-shows-community-managed-forests-have-lower-rates-of-deforestation-than-protected-areas/

The Rainforest Alliance is helping indigenous communities in Peru's Madre de Dios region to adopt sustainable forestry, strengthening the protection of their communal forests while improving their standard of living:

http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/multimedia/peru-community-forestry

All sounds great. Thailand cut down the forests years ago and created rice paddys. They are just fighting over the scraps now.

Although massively under threat, Thailand has about 25 to 30 % forest cover.......logging was banned in the late eighties. encroachment by agriculture, is a problem as is illegal logging. After WW2 till the 80s the Army denuded vast areas in order to reduce hiding places for insurgents

By now all logging of rosewood is by definition probably illegal.

the only place left to cut it on commercial volume is in the parks.

So the issue is entirely internal. Unless of course there are hords of rosewood cutters infiltrating Thailand with their cunning smuggling plan.

Internal?

posted this earlier today.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623068-cites-meeting-in-bangkok-40-years-on/