|
|
#1
06-20-2011, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Cocobolo - now upgraded on CITES ?
I have just noticed that Cocobolo is listed on LMI as shipping within US only due to CITES. However, the only available documentation I have seen is that Cocobolo was listed as Appendix III in 2007.
Does anyone know of any update or upgrade of Cocobolo on CITES? (Two months to go before my Bashkin Cocobolo/Adi build start so I need to make alternative plans/choices if we will have CITES issues with import to South Africa)
__________________
Cornerstone Zion Kostal MD Last edited by racman; 06-20-2011 at 10:21 PM. 
|
|
#2
06-20-2011, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cocobolo is only listed on Appendix III, and only if sourced from Guatemala.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon
|
|
#5
06-20-2011, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
06-21-2011, 09:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roy, I can keep your Bashkin for you at my place, I will make sure it is well played!
 I am really looking forward to this build and can’t wait to see and hear it! Congrats again.
__________________
Mike ’11 Bashkin Belleza - GC (Cedar/Mahogany) ’89 Taylor 712 Takamine EN-50 ESP Ltd MV-200
|
|
#9
06-21-2011, 12:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Klepper wrote:
"Cocobolo is only listed on Appendix III, and only if sourced from Guatemala." That may be the issue. If there's any sort of export restriction on a wood by a particular country, the US authorities can treat that wood from that country as if it were CITES I. If LMI can't confirm the source of their coco, then they have to treat it all is if it were fom Guatemala. At least, that's how I understand it. LMI is covering their butt, but given the confusion the recnt changes in law have brought about, and the really draconian punishments that can be involved, it's understandable.
|
|
#10
06-21-2011, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received this reply from Rob at LMI:
"The CITES list has been updated and yes there are more species listed that can not be exported." I will check out CITES website over the next few days to see if there are new addendums etc, but my initial search only revealed the 2007 Appendix III listing that Howard mentioned.
__________________
Cornerstone Zion Kostal MD
|
|
#11
06-21-2011, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon
|
|
#12
06-21-2011, 11:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
True Howard, but I have just found this recent notification (17Dec 2010) which clarifies Appendix III implementation
http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2010/E042.pdf: "Implementation of the listing of species in Appendix III where only specified national populations are included" It seems a little contradictory at times in the notification but I believe the underlying intent is clearly indicated in the last point (Para 9) as to the desired future actions. However, I still remain unenlightened as to any specific restrictions on any Cocobolo that does not originate from Guatemala. The only issue may be that the onus may be on the exporter/importer to prove that the Cocobolo did not originate from Guatemala which would be difficult. The 2010 notification states that if it did not then no restrictions apply, but how would one prove it to customs officers ...... To be safe, I may have to decide on another back and sides wood for my Bashkin ......
__________________
Cornerstone Zion Kostal MD
|
|
#13
06-22-2011, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Klepper asked:
"If it has to be treated as if it came from Guatemala, why not as it is listed: Appendix III? " It's Appendix III if you can show that it didn't come from Guatamala: if you can't show that you have to cover your butt and treat it as if it was Appendix I.
|
|
#14
06-22-2011, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I can't see where that interpretation might come from, Al. Any source? It has never been listed as Appendix I or Appendix II. Only Guatemala has requested Appendix III listing.
The document Racman referred to seems clear enough. The link didn't work, but I found it. See ¶6: ------------------------------------ "Regulation of trade in cases where a Party includes its own population in Appendix III 6. When one or more specified national populations of a species are included in Appendix III, all other populations of the species are excluded. The populations that are included are indicated in the CITES Appendices in brackets, next to the name of the species. The name of the Party that included each population in Appendix III is also indicated. In accordance with Article V of the Convention, these listings of individual populations should be implemented as follows: a) Export from the State that included the population in Appendix III of specimens originating in that State: requires the prior grant and presentation of an export permit that has been issued by the Management Authority of the State of export, in accordance with Article V, paragraph 2, of the Convention; b) Export from States whose populations are not listed in Appendix III of specimens originating in those States: no CITES document is required; c) Re-export of specimens that originated in a population that is included in Appendix III: requires a certificate issued by the Management Authority of the State of re-export that the specimen was processed in that State or is being re-exported, in accordance with Article V, paragraph 4; and d) Re-export of specimens that originated in a population that is not included in Appendix III: no CITES document is required." ----------------------------------- I would suggest that like many parties, LMI is confused about the law and has decided not to risk any mistakes.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." --Paul Simon Last edited by Howard Klepper; 06-22-2011 at 02:41 PM.
|
|
#15
06-22-2011, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It'sAppendix III, see http://www.cites.org/eng/app/E-Apr27.pdf Search for Dalbergia Retusa. Not sure why LMII is making the restriction. You'd have to email Nathalie. -- db
__________________
David D. Berkowitz
|
