IWMC World Conservation Trust

When a number of Parties, mainly from the northern hemisphere, indicated that they could not vote for the transfer of these elephant populations to Appendix II because it was not supported by many African range States, the call for dialogue rang out.  The Standing Committee was directed to revisit, in close co-operation with the African region, the review procedure for African elephant proposals.
 
Two dialogue meetings took place between the ninth and 10th meetings of the Conference of the Parties, one in Dakar (Senegal) and one in Zimbabwe just before the Harare meeting. Although differences remained, a dialogue was established that allowed a better understanding of the views of each participant.  The need for further discussions quickly became obvious.  It was agreed that they would take place during the 10th meeting in Zimbabwe.  A working group, there, was finally able to reach consensus. The result was the adoption by a vast majority of the Parties of the transfer of the three populations to Appendix II under very strict conditions.
 
A third meeting was organized after the Harare meeting, in Arusha (United Republic of Tanzania). Once again, the meeting was constructive.  Rather than question the decisions of the Parties, the meeting called for a halt by NGOs to the spreading of misinformation about poaching and illegal trade in ivory.  They were requested to change their rhetoric as they were inciting poaching and illegal trade.  Again, the consensus was to continue the dialogue that would be resumed at another meeting to be held before the 11th meeting of the Parties.
 
Finally it was determined that all conditions necessary for the resumption of an experimental trade in raw  ivory were met by the countries concerned.  This fact, contained in a report from the Secretariat, was formally agreed to by the Standing Committee, without any objection.  A last minute attempt, coordinated by the observer delegation of Kenya, to stop the process was ignored. As a result, the highly regulated trade in raw ivory was conducted smoothly under the control of the Secretariat by the middle of this year.
 
It became apparent after the Harare meeting, that those States and NGOs, opposed to any trade in elephant products, would not accept defeat.  They would continue their efforts toward imposing a new ban on such trade.  Tactics such as spreading misinformation, including trumpeting a few cases of illegal trade and poaching as being linked to the Harare decision, Parties and these same NGOs offered yet another argument.  In their opinion, the monitoring systems in place did not meet the CITES' safeguards.  Nor, they contended, would they ever.  This argument, like its predecessor, did not have any effect on the Standing Committee.  In the opponents mindset, more had to be done.
 
Again Kenya with the continuous support of extreme and rich NGOs, took the opposition lead. At the end of August 1999, ignoring completely the procedures set up for the African dialogue, the new Director of the Kenya Wildlife Service invited range States to a meeting to be held in Nairobi at the end of October.  Each was offered Kenyan assistance to in the form of financing their way to the meeting. The source of these funds was not indicated  No agenda was attached.  Although no reference were made to the consideration of a proposal to transfer the elephant populations in Appendix II back to Appendix I, the feeling of many was that this was the real purpose of the meeting.
 
Although no reliable source attending the Kenyan meeting has sent information about the proceedings, IWMC learned that Kenya, with the support of India, had submitted a proposal for the transfer of the populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Appendix I.  Word of this attempt spread even before the submission deadline for amendment proposals for consideration at COP 11 arrived.

While the basis for such a proposal is unknown at this date, one thing is certain.  It was not driven on the basis of the biological criteria in Annex 1 to Resolution Conf .9.24, nor from the comments from the range States directly concerned.  The tired excuse that the move was prompted by an escalation of illegal hunting of elephants and/or trade in elephant products simply will not be acceptable.  Kenya and its allies have already claimed the monitoring system in place is unable to demonstrate such an escalation, nor have they established any system to provide such a demonstration.

What has been demonstrated is that Kenya has voluntarily broken the established dialogue and has acted, not in the interest of the range states but out of its own self interest as well as that of those NGOs opposed to any sustainable use of natural resources.  

Evidently, the interest of the three range States concerned, and of South Africa, a nation that expects to see its elephant population transferred to Appendix II, are of no value to Kenya, although its proposal, if accepted, will affect the welfare of the local human populations, as well as the conservation of the elephant and of many associated species in those countries.
 
Considering the success of the experimental trade in ivory, which clearly demonstrates that CITES can work, it is not expected that Kenya could obtain a two-thirds majority vote on its proposal at CoP11.  However, it may push the Conference of the Parties to revert to the position it had adopted at the Fort Lauderdale meeting, and thus to refuse any range State the legitimate right to trade in elephant products in the foreseeable future.  In spite of this regrettable proposal, we hope the Conference of the Parties will maintain its support for those range States that have demonstrated their ability to conserve and manage their populations of African elephants in a sustainable way.�
 

In February 1999, scientists from Harvard University (USA), the University of Greenwich (UK) and Daiichi College of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Japan) looked at 130 samples of whale meat purchased from a variety of retail outlets including shops, department stores, fish markets and restaurants, in six cities across Japan. The samples included sashimi, salted and partially cooked meat, "whale bacon", sliced blubber strips with attached skin, and canned and cooked meat.
 
Fifty two percent of the samples showed excessive levels of contaminants including mercury, PCBs, DDT, and other insecticides polluting the oceans.  Twenty-seven percent of the samples were found to be mislabeled in terms of the type cetacean from which the meat was taken.
 
The JEM rhetoric used to describe the study's findings raised red flags Suggesting that perhaps it was being marketed for political rather than  health or environmental reasons.  For example, throughout the JEM description of the study statements such as "one sample" was found  to have ten times the mercury level acceptable under Japanese standards.  The Japanese government set "acceptable levels" of mercury at 0.4 parts per million (ppm).  Ten times 0.4 ppm is 4 ppm, still an infinitesimally small amount.  Nowhere is it stated that a 4ppm mercury constitutes a dangerous or lethal  level of mercury.  The one sample that showed a 203.75ppm level of mercury came from a portion of dolphin liver, an organ whose function is to filter contaminants from the body.
 
IWMC supports honest scientific analysis.  However, the marketing of this study seems to raise a number of unanswered questions about its integrity and whether or not it reflects a true snapshot of the impact of consuming cetacean flesh might have on human health.  The one thing that it does underscore is the need to eliminate pollutants from the oceans, an issue not mentioned by JEM.�