CITES’COP
11 Opens
The
eleventh Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP 11) opened Sunday afternoon,
April 9, amid a raucous and highly orchestrated media circus of balloons,
giant rubber whales, and children stopping traffic with signs to “save
the elephants” all provided courtesy of the animal protection NGOs who
consider Kenya and COP 11 their own policy-making playground. Fortunately
or unfortunately, depending upon one’s point of view, their influence in
CITES’ policy-making process directly affects the lives and future of many
of the planet’s animal and plant species, habitat, and diverse human cultures.
With Hope, NGO-Pomp, and a Few Surprises While advocates of sustainable use have much to achieve and reasonable hope for success, Kenya’s President, the Honorable Daniel arap Moi delivered an ominous keynote speech at the opening of COP 11’s first full work day, Monday, April 10. He denounced efforts by range nations with abundant elephant stocks to turn stockpiled ivory and hides into hard currency to fund wildlife conservation. President Moi echoed Kenyan and extreme NGO calls for the end to trade in “all animal products.” The first two days at Gigiri proved to be filled with unexpected surprises for advocates of sustainable use and “no-use” protectionists alike. Prior to the delegates’ arrival in Kenya, the CITES Secretariat reversed a preliminary opinion supporting the proposals and issued a recommendation for delegates to “reject” efforts to transfer specific stocks of minke and gray whales from Appendix I to Appendix II. The basis of that about face was attributed to the negative analysis of the downlist proposals by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However, no sooner had COP 11 opened then delegates, NGOs, and presumably the Secretariat itself, were shocked to learn of the controversy over the IUCN whale report voiced by a number of scientific authorities who served on the IUCN review panels for those proposals (see accompanying story). That reaction placed IUCN and the Secretariat in potentially difficult situations. The second “surprise” facing delegates was the unprecedented and harsh penalties recommended by the Secretariat’s fact-finding mission sent to investigate India’s tiger conservation program. The mission report recommended a worldwide stoppage of all funds for tiger conservation being sent to India by governments and NGOs alike plus a “shunning” of India by all CITES party nations through refusal to issue import or export permits for any CITES’ specie involving that Asian nation should India fail to remedy the flaws in its conservation program by COP 12. (see related story) It would be the height of understatement to say that COP 11 promised
to be “interesting.”¨
Scientists
Call IUCN Whale Report “Misleading”
The
International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) report intended
to help guide delegates in their decision-making process on the whale proposals
pending before COP 11 drew unexpected criticism from many of the scientists
on the report’s scientific review panel. The report was labeled “unbalanced”
and “misleading” by a number of the world’s leading scientists IUCN had
approached to act as reviewers of the IUCN findings.
Such charges not only called the credibility of the IUCN report into doubt, they also posed a serious problem to the entire COP 11 policy-making process regarding proposals by Norway and Japan to downlist certain stocks of minke whales as well as the Eastern Pacific stock of gray whales. Traditionally respected for its scientific objectivity, IUCN found itself in the doubly embarrassing position of having its credibility challenged and its relationship with the CITES Secretariat strained over the incident. The Secretariat used the IUCN Whale report as the rationale behind its shift from a preliminary position supporting the whale downlisting proposals to one recommending rejection by COP 11 delegates. Among the complaints issued by the panel of experts was the lack of time IUCN allowed them to review and comment on the accuracy of the report’s final draft. Some were given only hours, leaving virtually no time to correct any misleading information contained in the report. A number of the scientists cast doubt that their views were “taken into account” by the report drafters. Perhaps the most serious charge was that a number of the panelists said they disagreed with the report’s conclusions. One disgruntled reviewer said the standards IUCN applied to the whale stocks in question were unrealistic not only for the whales in question but also for any current commercially fished marine species. He then went on to pose the hypothetical question asking if IUCN was “advocating the suspension of all high seas fishing?” The controversy has left COP 11 delegates wondering what response this
criticism will prompt from the Secretariat on the whale issues.¨
Unprecedented
Sanctions Against India
The
CITES Secretariat made an unprecedented move against India in its recommendation
that all Parties, non-Parties, international organizations and non-government
organizations not send additional financial support for tiger conservation
in India until India demonstrated that funds are used efficiently and for
the purpose of tiger conservation and that the government’s own funds are
being fully and efficiently utilized.
Called for by Cites Tiger Mission In addition, the CITES Secretariat recommended that until India establishes specialized wildlife crime units and increases enforcement and financial control measures, the Standing Committee is urged to recommend to the Parties a trade embargo against India for all CITES-listed specimens. The finding that led to Mission’s recommendations was that up to 30 percent of some park budgets remained unspent. In addition, the very basic requirements for field staff of salary, personal radio equipment, modern weaponry and patrol vehicles were still not present in many areas. Vehicles presented by foreign NGOs to Project Tiger for poaching patrols had been diverted to other uses. The recommendations follow on the heels of the CITES Tiger High-Level Political Mission’s findings. In Doc. 11.30, the Political Mission’s disappointment with India’s failure to make an effort to redress some of the problems found by the CITES Tiger Missions Technical Team is palpable. Throughout the report, its authors refer to their findings in highly critical tones stressing that “… the mission found the responsible officials to be, in the main, evasive when questioned about what work was actually taking place at field level.” Worse, the mission report states that “State administrators appear to deliberately conceal the loss of tigers to poachers” and called the Indian response to mission inquires a “culture of cover-up….” The Mission’s harsh criticism was not confined to the Indian government. “The mission was also disappointed that TRAFFIC India does not appear to have played as large a role in calling attention to the clear shortcomings in tiger conservation as might have been reasonably expected” and “The mission was concerned that WWF India… has been so absorbed in recent years with its internal problems that it has failed to motivate stronger action from public authorities in India….” The mission, however, was notably impressed with dedication and determination of some officials, primarily the head of the CITES Management Authority and the Director of Project Tiger, whose term with the project will end in approximately a year. However, “varying levels of apathy, complacency and bureaucracy seem to stifle or frustrate good work and intentions.” According to the Mission’s own figures, since launching of Project Tiger, in 1973, between US$8 to 10 million has been channeled into India by overseas Governmental and NGO bodies for tiger conservation. Approximately US$130-150 million has been spent by Union and State governments on tiger preservation. These totals, however, do not distinguish between funds going to NGOs in India for tiger conservation and funds going to the government of India for that purpose. In the Technical Mission Report, the team found that the government of India was increasingly relying upon NGOs in India to undertake and carryout duties that normally come under the jurisdiction of state agencies. This was a dynamic found to be very worrisome to the technical team for a variety of reasons. However, the Technical Team noted that if the NGOs did not perform the tasks, they probably would not be done. A key point raised by the Technical Mission, one vital to the success of virtually any conservation project is India’s “failure to engage local people in the fight against tiger poaching” and participate in conservation efforts in general. Observers see this flaw in India’s approach to as undermining the success of its tiger program as well as other wildlife conservation programs in that country. Without knowing precisely the distribution of funds, there is no way to ascertain the impact of a funding ban. The worse-case scenario would see NGOs performing these essential tasks losing their funding with the duties they normally perform dropped. Clearly this would not benefit the target population – TIGERS – and no one believes funding will be cut-off for a prolonged period. This raises the specter of third party oversight and loss by India over its control of its tiger conservation programs. Third party oversight is a key component to the NGO agenda. India
is vulnerable to such a scenario. If, as some observers believe,
this opportunity is seized by an NGO, the NGO will reap tremendous financial
and public relations benefits (by collecting a percentage of donated fees
for administrative purposes and through soliciting donations on its own
as the overseers of “save the tiger” programs). India will lose sovereignty
over management of its resources.¨
Editorial:
En
primer lugar, la existencia de CITES y el creciente número de naciones
signatorias (actualmente algunas 153) del acuerdo internacional de conservación
de las especies relacionadas con el comercio internacional es, en sí,
las evidencias de que aquellas naciones representadas en la COP 11 están
de acuerdo en cuanto a lo importante que es la conservación de los
recursos silvestres del mundo. No puede haber debate sustantivo de este
punto. El desacuerdo entre los participantes radica en el apoyo u oposición
al comercio de estos recursos.
El Comercio y el mito de “ningún comercio” Una perspectiva sobre CITES Al menos durante todo el tiempo que CITES ha existido, los proponentes del comercio de especies silvestres de flora y fauna han aceptado el concepto del uso sostenible y lo han planteado como un técnica eficaz para motivar a conservar. Los oponentes ven el comercio como el predecesor e instigador de esfuerzos ilegales y desenfrenados por parte de los que carecen de límites éticos y morales a su depredación de plantas o animales. Hasta la fecha, la pasión del debate y las acusaciones incendiarias hechas mayormente por las ONG y naciones que siguen la ideología de ningún comercio han distraído a los proponentes del uso sostenible de la presentación de una defensa concisa y convincente del comercio. Esa acalorada controversia también salvó la facción anti-comercio del escrutinio público del mito de “ningún comercio”. De hecho, la falta de un argumento persuasivo a favor del comercio ha permitido que los oponentes del comercio disfruten de un foro incontrovertido en el que han ofuscado las perspectivas del público, los medios de comunicación y los creadores de la política con la acusación que el comercio es cruel, no humano, basado en la avaricia y una amenaza a la supervivencia de las especies “en peligro” en el planeta. Desde el punto de vista de la Fuerzas para el Uso Sostenible, no se debe permitir jamás que esa acusación permanezca sin contender y sin corregir. En defensa del comecio Durante toda la historia de la humanidad el comercio ha ocupado un papel importante en el desarrollo de la condición humana. El comercio fomenta las relaciones entre los individueos, comunidades, culturas y naciones. Abre las fronteras cerradas y mentes cerradas permitiendo que un pueblo deseche la ignorancia, sospechas y temor que tiene hacia otro pueblo. Provee la riqueza que se utiliza para alimentos, albergue, educación, salud y otros avances individuales y culturales. Sobre todo, es el factor prinicipal en la eliminación de la mayor amenaza a los recursos naturales y en la lucha contra la causa principal de la contaminación, a saber, la pobreza. Examínese cualquier nación o pueblo empobrecidos. La conservación de la flora, fauna y lugares silvestres no es una prioridad. Sobrevivir sí que es una prioridad. Los campos y ríos son despojados de sus recursos y frecuentemente ensuciados con desechos humanos. La flora y fauna silvestres se consume y los hábitat se destruyen con las esperanzas de poder arrancar alguna cultiva que (a menudo apenas) sustente la vida. Es un modelo comprobado por el tiempo y relevante a toda nación, incluso las desarrolladísimas super-potencias de alta tecnología de la actualidad. La depredación de la flora y fauna silvestres en Estados Unidos no cesó y la conservación de su flora, fauna y lugares silvestres no se hizo prioritaria sino hasta cuando Estados Unidos pudo alimentar a su gente. En fecha tan reciente como a comienzos del siglo XX la flora y fauna silvestres en Estados Unidos estaban a punto de ser extintas. Actualmente, gracias al comercio y la amplia distribución de riquezas que éste creó, los recursos naturales de esa nación están prosperando. Al incrementarse la riqueza de esa nación también aumentó su habilidad de financiar e implementar la conservación. El mito de “NINGÚN COMERCIO” Los oponentes del comercio han creado hábilmente una visión de un mundo en que la eliminación de actividades tan propiamente humanas como el comercio ha facilitado la elaboración de un mundo utópico donde los animales abundan, agua fría y pura fluye en los riachuelos y los paisajes abarcan campos verdes y majestuosas montañas que suben en aire despejado y fresco. La mano del hombre no se evidencia en ningún lado. Sin duda, es una visión encantadora, especialmente cuando se yuxtapone contra el escenario triste en que sus imágenes proyectan que el comercio legal engendrará la caza furtiva, contaminación y desfiguración de la tierra. Francamente, la percepción negativa del comercio, tal como su homólogo positivo, se basa en el contexto de la historia. Siempre se encuentran abusos cuando la riqueza se distribuye entre pocos y los beneficios del comercio no se disfrutan entre la esfera más amplia de la población de una nación. La historia de las naciones industriales está repleta de ejemplos de explotación desconsiderada cuyas consecuencias las sufrió la naturaleza. Sin embargo, actualmente el concepto del uso sostenible y el modelo impulsador de las corporaciones contemporáneas mundiales ven la compatibilidad medioambiental y la justicia social como inextricablemente entrelazadas con la prosperidad económica. Esa estrategia tripartita no tolera los abusos medioambientales o sociales. Sin embargo, dentro de la visión de los en contra del comercio, no cabe ni la posibilidad de que el comercio sea sostinible dentro de la economía o el medioambiente ni que sea socialmente justo. Para las ONG y naciones anti-comercio el comercio es una maldad y, de acuerdo al mensaje pronunciado por muchos de sus voceros aquí en Kenia, “debe ser destruído sin piedad”. La falla de la ideología de “ningún uso” es que es una visión del mundo como “debe ser” y no “como es”. La realidad es que no existe una condición de “ningún comercio”. El cese del comercio legal elimina las riquezas que permiten que un país costee la reglamentación, supervisión, control e imponer la obediencia a las medidas de conservación. Cuando se suprimen el control e imposición de obediencia (como lo hizo Kenia hace poco cuando redujo se presupuesto para programas para flora y fauna silvestres desde $600,000 en 1997 a $300,000 en 1999) la caza ilícita llena el vacío, así como sucedió en Kenia. El cazador furtivo reemplaza al comerciante legal. El empresario de mercado nego reemplaza al oficial de conservación. La fauna silvestres sufren por el precio que la economía clandestina y descontrolada pone a su cabeza, piel y carne. El comercio legal no impulsa el comercio ilegal. La falta de comercio
legal sí lo hace. Ése es el mensaje que las fuerzas por el
uso sostenible tienen que llevar a CITES; es el principio sobre el cual
CITES y la flora y fauna silvestres prosperarán.¨
Editorial:
Trade Versus the Myth of “No Trade”
First
and foremost, the existence of CITES and the growing number of signatory
nations (currently at 153?) to the international accord on conserving species
involved in international trade is, on its face, evidence that those nations
represented at COP 11 agree on the importance of conserving the world’s
wild resources. On that point, there can be no substantive debate.
Where participants disagree is over their support for or opposition to
trade in these resources.
A CITES Perspective For at least as long as CITES has been in existence, advocates of trade in species of wild fauna and flora have embraced the concept of sustainable trade and hold it forth as an effective technique to encourage conservation. Opponents see trade as prelude and precipitant to the wanton, illegal endeavors by those who possess no moral or ethical limits to their predation on animals or plants. To date, the passion of the debate and inflammatory charges made largely by NGOs and nations espousing the non-trade ideology have distracted sustainable use advocates from presenting a concise and cogent defense of trade. That heated controversy also spared the non-trade faction from a public scrutiny of the myth of “no trade.” In fact, the lack of a compelling argument for trade has enabled non-trade advocates to enjoy an unchallenged arena from which they have colored the public, press and policy-makers’ perspectives with the charge that trade is cruel, inhumane, greed-driven, and a threat to the survival of the planets “endangered” species. From the point of view of Sustainable Use Forces, that charge must never be allowed to stand unchallenged or uncorrected. In Defense of Trade Throughout mankind’s history, trade has played an important role in the improvement of the human condition. It fosters relationships among individuals, communities, cultures and nations. It opens closed borders and closed minds allowing one people to jettison ignorance, suspicion, and fear of another. It provides wealth that in turn is used for food, shelter, education, health care as well as individual and cultural advancement. Most important it is the chief factor in eliminating the greatest threat to wild resources as well as in combating the chief cause of pollution, namely poverty. Look at any impoverished nation or people. Conservation of wildlife and wild places is not a priority. Survival is. Field and stream alike are stripped of sustenance and more often than not befouled with human waste. Wildlife is consumed and habitat destroyed in hopes of scratching from its soil some (often barely) life-sustaining crop. It’s a time-tested pattern applicable to every nation, including today’s high-tech, highly developed super powers. Not until the United States was able to feed its people did predation of its wildlife cease and conservation of wildlife and wild places become a national priority. As recently as the dawn of the 20th Century, wildlife in the U.S. was on the brink of extinction. Today, thanks to trade and the broad distribution of the wealth it created, that nation’s wild resources are flourishing. As that nation’s wealth grew, so too grew its ability to fund and manage conservation tasks. The Myth of “NO TRADE” Opponent of trade, have adroitly created a vision of the world where the elimination of such distinctly human activities as trade lead to a Utopian world where animals abound; streams flow with cool, pure water; vistas filled with verdant fields and majestic mountains soaring into crisp, clear air. Nowhere is evidence of the hand of man. It’s an alluring vision to be sure, particularly when it is juxtaposed with a bleak scenario where their projected images of legal trade begets illegal poaching, pollution, denuding of nature’s landscape. To be candid, the negative perception of trade, just like its positive counterpart, is based in a historical context. Where distribution of wealth is closely held by a few and the benefits of trade are not enjoyed by the broadest range of a nation’s people abuses are found. Certainly, the history of industrial nations is one filled with inconsiderate exploitation and nature suffered the consequences. However, today the concept of sustainable use and the driving model for modern global corporations is one where economic prosperity is intrinsically linked with environmental compatibility and social justice. This three-pronged approach does not tolerate environmental or social abuse. Nevertheless, the non-trade advocate’s vision allows no room for even the possibility of trade as economically and environmentally sustainable or socially just. To non-use NGO’s and nations alike, trade is evil, and in the message delivered by many of their spokesmen here in Kenya, “must be ruthlessly destroyed.” The flaw in the “non-use” ideology is that it is a vision of the world as it “ought to be;” not of it as “it is.” The reality is that there is no such thing as “no trade.” The cessation of legal trade eliminates the wealth that allows a country to afford to regulate, supervise, manage, and enforce conservation measures. By taking management and enforcement from the mix (as Kenya recently did when it cut its wildlife enforcement budget in half from $600,000 in 1997 to $300,000 in 1999), illegal trade fills the void as poaching did in Kenya. The legal trader is replaced by the poacher. The conservation official is replaced by the black market entrepreneur. Wildlife suffers from a price placed upon its head, hide, and meat by the underground, uncontrolled economy. Legal trade does not drive illegal trade. The lack of legal trade
does. That is the message sustainable use forces must carry to CITES.
It’s the principle upon which CITES and wildlife can and will flourish.¨
General Information
|
