Commentary on CITES

[Guest guest]

Has CITES had its day?

 

[image: Mark Jones]

*VIEWPOINT*

Mark Jones

 

*Governments, conservationists and pro-trade groups have been trying to make

what capital they can from their respective " victories " at last month's

meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

(CITES). But, asks Mark Jones, is the 37-year-old convention successfully

doing the job it was established to do?*

[image: Juvenile hammerhead shark]

*CITES... gets into difficulty when it tries to deal with species of high

commercial value*

 

CITES is mandated to ensure that international trade in wild animals and

plants, or products derived from them, does not threaten their survival.

 

An impressive-sounding 175 parties (member countries) are committed to

implementing various protection measures for some 5,000 species of animal

and 28,000 plants.

 

Yet 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.

[image: Tuna at auction]

Japan sent a hefty delegation to CITES to protect its bluefin interest

 

Faced with proposals to protect beleaguered stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna

and several species of shark, Japan sent around 50 delegates to coerce

island states and developing nations into supporting their opposition.

 

It used claims of cultural bias, veiled threats, trade incentives and aid

packages. Serving sushi derived from Atlantic bluefin tuna at a lavish

reception for delegates the night before the vote was a particularly cynical

move.

 

The Zambian delegation rolled out Chieftainess Chiawa, head of a prominent

indigenous group, to play the " poverty card " in support of their efforts to

secure permission from the conference to downlist their elephant population

and sell off their stockpiled ivory; her pleas not to let her people starve

when considering the fate of Zambia's valuable ivory stocks were

impassioned, if somewhat lacking in logic.

CITES EXPLAINED

Threatened organisms listed on three appendices depending on level of risk

Appendix 1 - all international trade banned

Appendix 2 - international trade monitored and regulated

Appendix 3 - trade bans by individual governments, others asked to assist

" Uplisting " - moving organism to a more protective appendix; " downlisting " -

the reverse

Conferences of the Parties (COPs) held every three years

CITES administered by UN Environment Programme (Unep)

 

The European Union, whose 27 votes are a powerful force, votes as a bloc

despite wide differences of opinion between EU member states on some issues.

 

 

Surely if a party firmly believes that science and evidence supports a

particular view, it should be obliged to vote accordingly, and not be forced

to vote differently by political arrangement?

 

The UK broke ranks by voting in favour of Atlantic bluefin tuna protection,

incurring the wrath (and no doubt further sanctions down the line) of its EU

partners.

 

These and other factors had a major bearing on the voting on a number of

important proposals.

 

Attempts to gain CITES listings for marine species threatened with

extinction because of overfishing, including bluefin tuna and hammerhead

sharks, failed to gain the necessary support, in spite of UN Food and

Agriculture Organization endorsement.

 

As a consequence, these species - like so many other overfished marine

stocks - remain at the mercy of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations

(RFMOs), the very organisations that have presided over their near demise.

 

*Poor arguments*

 

Delegates in favour of maintaining trade in certain threatened species often

claim that limiting trade will harm the economies of poor communities, or

reduce the opportunity for people to obtain essential resources.

 

However, most shark fishing is carried out in international waters by large

commercial vessels to serve the tastes of the growing middle classes in East

Asia for shark fin soup, and 80% of Atlantic bluefin tuna ends up as sushi

in Japanese restaurants.

 

Red and pink corals are disappearing fast in order to supply nothing more

essential than markets for jewellery and trinkets.

 

Yet they all failed to gain protection.

 

In any event, there is nothing that will devastate a poor coastal community

more than the complete collapse of a stock of fish, removing a potential

resource for the generations to come.

 

*Satanic salvation*

 

Some of the decisions and resolutions adopted by the conference, though,

will have important conservation benefits.

*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*

 

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.

 

*Demand led*

 

CITES seems to be most successful when dealing with species for which

international trade poses a significant threat but where financial or

economic considerations are limited.

 

It gets into difficulty when it tries to deal with species of high

commercial value.

 

The international trade value of timber and fish products dwarfs that of all

other species put together. Yet despite demand for many tree and fish

species driving them towards extinction in the wild, the vast majority of

attempts to introduce or strengthen protection for them failed at this

conference.

[image: French customs officer with tusk]

The conference did not approve further sales in ivory

 

As we go forward, it is vital that the conference exercises its mandate to

regulate trade in these species.

 

Exploitation of, and trade in, wildlife and wildlife products is driven by

demand.

 

In an ideal world, we would control trade in endangered species by reducing

the demand, by educating people in consumer states.

 

However, in the face of criticism concerning " interference with national

sovereign rights " , " cultural traditions " and " ignorance of poverty " , such

efforts are unlikely to succeed - certainly not in time to save many of the

species this conference discussed.

 

So, while continuing with demand reduction efforts, the focus is on

controlling the supply through national and international regulation,

effective enforcement and severe penalties for offenders who try to obtain,

ship or trade in wildlife products illegally.

 

The growing involvement of sophisticated, well-funded and increasingly armed

criminal organisations in the illegal wildlife trade was recognised at the

conference, along with the need for enforcement efforts to match this level

of sophistication if it is to be effective.

 

Wildlife crime, long seen as " soft " , is now up there with the trade in

drugs, weapons and people in terms of its significance and the way it

operates.

 

*Only game in town?*

 

So is CITES still an effective force for species conservation?

 

There is a feeling among many conservationists that Doha may have been our

last chance to give real, meaningful protection for some species - and that

we missed it.

 

However, for all its faults, CITES is the one international convention

specifically targeted at controlling trade in endangered species, so it is

the international legal framework with which we have to work.

 

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?

 

*Mark Jones is programmes and fundraising director of Care for the Wild

International, a UK-based conservation charity*

 

*The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics

running weekly on the BBC News website*

 

------------------------------

 

*Do you agree with Mark Jones? Is CITES - and are other international

conservation fora - dominated by political self-interest? Is there any

alternative? Are decisions made at the Doha meeting likely to lead to

extinctions?*

 

Japan and China have a lot to answer for. It seems that 90% of endangered

animals end up there in one way of the other; pelts, food, trinkets or

medicines. Nothing will work until the new generation is educated in their

destructive nature. We cannot continue to rape our only worlds resources

because we will be the ones who ultimely suffer. It's a really sad state of

affairs.

*Nightshade, Swindon*

 

What perhaps one need is more enforcement efforts. This article reminds me

of one UN magazine feature on the analysis of CITES and the need to

strengthen enforcement.

*john Willy, Tokyo, Japan*

 

I like very much your analysis of the meeting - however (and don't get me

wrong I am a conservationist) the Zambia amended proposal (to sell rawhides,

hunting trophies and live animals) was not given the right attention - this

was not about selling ivory stocks...unfortunately a proposal that had some

merits got wrapped up into a larger and quite emotional debate - where some

lost perspective on what was agreed at Cop14 and failed to objectively

assess whether the concerned expressed with regard to one off sales were

true also for downlisting for these other specific uses. Despite the

politicization of the debates, I think CITES remains the most effective

international agreement; If I was a State party I would revisit the rules on

secret voting: by increasing transparency and accountability - which vote by

secret ballots defeats - we can perhaps de-politicize a little more future

debates and perhaps through targeted consumer campaigns make sure that CITES

parties are accountable to their constituencies.

*Tanya Rosen, New York, USA*

 

In response to Pierre's comment below, if the ivory trade were to be allowed

in some countries, this would set a precedent and others would soon be

clamouring for the same right. It would be impossible to control how the

ivory was sourced and where it had come from. There would be widescale

poaching and many elephants would suffer terribly. The decision not to allow

Zambia and Tanzania to begin selling ivory is one of the best ones made at

CITES.

*Wendy De-Ville, Haywards Heath, West Sussex*

 

The problem with CITES is that it does very little to enable or provide

positive incentives for sustainable levels of harvesting. It seeks to

regulate harvesting levels indirectly by placing restrictions or outright

bans on international trade. This is a very weak and blunt (non-specific)

policy instrument and, as the author notes, it " gets into difficulty when it

tries to deal with species of high commercial value. " In fact, it is

possible that CITES is making matters worse for high-value terrestrial

species such as rhinos, tigers and elephants. When market demand persists in

the face of bans (as with illicit drugs), massive profit opportunities

arise, attracting organized crime rings to step in and control the trade

that governments cannot. As CITES progressively increases legal trade

restrictions, it inexorably drives trade into the hands of these suppliers

of last resort: the same criminal syndicates that smuggle arms and drugs and

mostly remain beyond the reach of the law. The USA has recently pledged over

$ 1.5 billion simply to try and control the illegal drugs trade with Mexico

- a battle it will most likely lose. And CITES wants to control the

worldwide trade in a multitude of different species products with its annual

budget of $ 6 million? Who is going to win that battle? My guess is it won't

be either CITES or conservation. Perhaps it is time to think outside the

box!

*Michael 't Sas-Rolfes, Cape Town, South Africa*

 

Of course political self-interest plays an important role in international

conservation fora, including CITES. But so what, as long as the principle of

sustainable use is respected? The real tragedy of this CITES conference was

the vote against Zambian and Tanzanina ivory sales. Both these countries

have healthy, growing elephant populations which are coming into

ever-increasing conflict with humans. Why should they not be allowed to

benefit from ivory sales as a form of compensation, just because Kenya and a

handful of others are too corrupt to stop elephant poaching? For marine

resources the picture is completely different: they are universally on the

verbe of collapse and should - ratinally speaking - be given at least a

decade of no commercial exploitation to see if they can still recover.

Unfortunately rationality is not Homo sapiens's strong point...

*Pierre du Plessis, Windhoek, Namibia*

 

Why is the funding not increased for instance from taxes on trades in

already restricted fish stocks to enable a more powerful organisation? It

seems that all the UN is is an agent to dissaprove of things yet do nothing

in the face of any opposition from rich countries or poor ones playing the

economic card.

*James Higham, Edinburgh*

 

Living in Japan, it was interesting to see how NHK news (the Japanese

equivalent of the BBC) covered the run up to the Doha conference and the

potential trade ban on Atlantic blue fin tuna. They put it across as a

battle for a Japanese tradition that would be at risk of dying out if the

trade ban took place, with an attitude of " we all love to eat tuna, don't

we? So we should be allowed to continue " (accompanied by footage of young

children tucking into some sushi). They also featured the traditional fish

market in Tokyo, and the small number of traders who might feel an economic

pinch if the ban took place. Not once did they mention that this species is

critically endangered, and I doubt that many Japanese people know that it

is. Unfortunately for Japan, Japan won this battle at Doha (an own goal).

When Atlantic blue fin tuna does go (commercially) extinct, maybe in as

little as three years according to some, the international community will

blame the Japanese for eating this fish to extinction (80% is eaten in

Japan). In the case of Japan, it put very short term political interests

first, and risked tarnishing its international image in the future. With

short-sighted views and actions such as these, attempts at protecting

commercially important species are doomed to failure.

*R. Smith, Japan*

 

The problem - the question - with all of these protecting bodies is; " are

the actually mandated to tell us to stop " - sure they list things, and they

are a forum for the various parties to argue their cases. But anywhere in

all this, are they actually designed and expected to say " Stop " - " you've

had all there is to have; now you have to find some other way of living; you

have to stop exploiting this (what ever it is) - not simple agree new

quota's, or launch another scientific study; you simply have to s t o ppp! "

Or isn't that actually in their mandate ? Steven

*Steven Walker, Penzance*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8606011.stm