I can only find like 6 coarls that are concidered "CITES species".
A species can be listed as Appendix I, II, or III. In some cases entire groups can be listed (the example on the CITES webpage lists whales and orchids as examples, among others).
Appendix I is a list of species "immediately threatened with extinction" (or some such wording). Essentially, anything listed as Appendix I, forget it, there is no way for it to legally cross a border, save for very exceptional circumstances where specialized permits might be optained (research perhaps, I don't know). Paphiopedilum sp. orchids, for example, are App. I, and there is no way to cross a border with one of these plants, or even a piece of the plant, or any seeds. I'm not certain about seedlings in flasks but you get the general idea.
Appendix II are species that are not immediately threatened with extinction "but may become so unless trade is closely controlled."
Go to the
Fauna species database lookup page and enter in some coral species names. When I did it just now, all the things I came up with had a hit in the database as App. II. (Trust me there are more than 6 species listed altogether! [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] )
As I understand it, most (if not all) stony corals are listed as either App. I or II. Live rock and live sand are listed somewhere too (I couldn't find any listings in the 30 seconds I alloted myself to find them, but we can safely trust that they are listed).
Tridacnid clams are listed as Appendix II.
I have heard (but have not independently confirmed) that a lot of the soft corals we see in the trade/hobby are not listed.
Surprisingly, the Pacific host anemone species are NOT listed.
I have no idea about fish species. I imagine that some are listed, while others possibly not so.
It doesn't matter whether the individual specimens were captive-propagated, or wild-collected. All that matters is that its species name is in the database or not.
does this mean any other coarls can still come in?
While being completely ignorant of the specific Fiji situation, here is what the general import process goes like.
- Importer (here) obtains any relevant import permits
- Importer contacts exporter (there) with purchase order
- Exporter obtains CITES export permits issued in country of origin, and any other governmental permits required by both countries (for example if it were plants the government of Canada requires an inspection by the government of the exporting country to issue a "phytosanitary certificate" documenting that the plants are "certified nematode free", or something like that).
- Exporter puts goods on a plane
- Goods arrive in new country
- Importer clears goods through customs, showing all paperwork issued in both countries, lists documenting all the species in transit, etc. etc. Customs may require an inspection of the goods to see if they match the paperwork details, etc. etc.
It is at this last step where if anything is not copesetic, that the goods be seized and likely destroyed. That's if the importer is lucky! If customs beleives that the importer was trying to "pull a fast one by them" and trying to illegally sneak something in, then the importer is going to be in a world of hurt (you can face several thousands of dollars in fines and I've even heard, up to 15 years in prison).
So, my guess is with Fiji, is that CITES export permits can no longer be obtained in that country.
So my answer to your question is, probably "yes," seeing as there probably are indeed a handful of species that do not require CITES export permits. But there probably isn't much left, seeing as most things are CITES one way or the other. Also, customs officers are going to know about the Fiji situation, so if they see anything coming out of that country, you know it's a safe bet they are going to be looking at those shipments with very diligent scrutiny. Any professional importer is probably going to recognize this too, and (my guess is) just decide that it's not worth the bother, and instead import from somewhere else. So the caveat to my "yes" is "... but probably not, realistically."
[ 07 February 2002: Message edited by: delphinus ]</p>