After Gigiri:Looking
Toward COP 12
COP
11 proved that the forces of non-use once again failed to seize strategic
advantage despite a setting that by all counts should have given them complete
victory. During COP 9 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and here in Kenya, the
opponents of sustainable use saw opportunities elude their grasp. At Gigiri,
attempts to bring commercial marine species under the oversight of CITES
failed miserably. Southern African nations added yet another range nation’s
stocks to Appendix II. And the fight for worldwide recognition of Cuba’s
conservation efforts with Hawksbill Sea Turtles has just begun.
By Eugene Lapointe The non-use forces picked the terrain, planned the assault, and still came away with token concessions. All of which points to the importance of the next COP and the potential for Sustainable Use advocates whether the site is on friendly, neutral or even hostile land. Given nearly thirty years of its existence and the important role it plays in the lives of those who depend upon nature’s resources, CITES is still a largely unknown and little understood entity to the majority of nations, corporations, governments and people. To those who know, on both sides of the sustainable use issue, CITES is an incredibly important battlefield. For developing nations and communities dependant upon the land and sea for subsistence, what is determined at CITES’ meetings of its Party nations directly or indirectly influences the quality of their lives. Without trying to be overly dramatic, the analogy between CITES and battlefield can be made. Both are arenas upon which life or death, survival or ruin is determined. Both demand the greatest depth of examination and reflection if the course of action chosen is to lead to success and avoid its opposite. These are lessons brought home at COP11 in Gigiri over the past two weeks. They are the reasons why we must look toward COP 12. Sustainable use advocates knew well in advance of the meetings in Gigiri that Kenya was terrain controlled by the non-use forces. Given the inherent disadvantage of being forced to march to the opposition’s territory, Sustainable Use parties managed to achieve a fair degree of success. Hard work and coordination, under the leadership of southern African delegations, secured the down listing of yet another range nation’s elephant population along with the okay to trade in elephant products, with the exception of ivory. Attempts to bring commercial marine fish species under CITES sanction via the "Introduction from the Seas" and three separate shark listing proposals were defeated. Down listing of the Cuban Hawksbill sea turtle population failed by three lone votes in Committee I but the debate will be rejoined in the Plenary. As CITES draws to a close (and a number of proposals have not yet been decided as this newsletter is being sent), we must begin now to plan for COP 12. In doing so, let us continue the metaphor of CITES as war and examine our strengths and those areas we need to reinforce. Let us like generals from long ago, assess the state of our sustainable use with an eye towards victory. In so doing let see where we stand by using the five criteria handed down by military strategists over the ages: the way, climate, terrain, command, and regulation. THE WAY The successful endeavor is one where the motivation of the leaders and of the foot soldiers flows from the same source. For us, Sustainable Use is "The Way." Between now and COP 12 we must bring knowledge and dedication to sustainable use to all possible allies: the public, the press, politicians and policy-makers in each of our communities and in those nations whose votes will mean the difference between victory and defeat. If our "Way" is just, and we truly believe it is so, then we must spread the word in ways we have never tried before. CLIMATE Certainly on a battlefield, the presence of sun, snow, wind, clouds, and rain play important roles in how armies perform. At CITES, the "climate" refers to the receptivity or resistence of delegates, their governments, and their nations to sustainable use issues. Can we do a better job in preparing for COP 12? With sufficient communications, coordination, funding, and implementation we can. We can alter the climate from that which we found in Kenya to one more accepting of the need by animals and humans to be part of a sustainable use strategy. TERRAIN Kenya may not be the most friendly of nations to sustainable use. But, to a degree, small but not insignificant inroads into opening the perspective of the Kenyan people toward a better understanding of sustainable use were made, particularly by the interaction and persistence of the southern African delegations. The extreme animal rights and other non-use NGOs consider Kenya their home field complete with friendly media and supportive governmental infrastructure. Of course, they felt the same about Ft. Lauderdale, Florida back at COP 9 and great strides were made there in gaining momentum for sustainable use. The location of COP 12, once it is known, should be the target of a significant amount of preparation for CITES. We must begin building a presence and alliances from the first day the Secretariat makes the site selection known. When we know our terrain, we will know how best to deploy our "troops." COMMAND Traditionally, command has been considered a combination of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and discipline. These are the characteristics of those playing lead roles in promoting the sustainable use agenda. If anything, this is our area of greatest strength. We must no abandon it for the sake of expediency. The non-use forces portray our side as greed-driven and oblivious to the plight of animals. And while they are very effective selling that stereotype, nothing could be farther from the truth. If anything Sustainable Use advocates, cherish animals and humans alike. We tell the truth and demand the best in personal and scientific accounting. Yet we have not been successful in projecting the image of who we really are to the public. We are the caretakers and saviors of wildlife. It’s time we take credit for our good works and let our humanity and humaneness shine through. REGULATION As anyone with military experience (or who can read) well knows, an important component to fighting any battle is the efficiency and effectiveness of the "organizational structure," the chain of command, and the structure for logistical support. We must reevaluate those organizational strengths and weaknesses within the Sustainable Use community. A great deal of work must be done prior to COP 12 in terms of upgrading our organizational effectiveness at every level: how to respond quickly and effectively, improving lines of communication; and, perhaps most importantly, establishing a sound structure for logistical support. Waging a public perception campaign to ensure success at the CITES COP 12 levels demands instant attention to accumulating an appropriate war chest to fund operations, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of our arguments, creating materials from posters to video, from grade school course curricula to sales items to help generate that most important of logistical commodities, funding. IWMC – World Conservation Trust knows there are things at COP 11 that
could be improved upon. We pledge to work on exactly that. Nevertheless
a true victory comes from the many, not the one. As leave Gigiri and COP
11, let us resolve to begin to work anew towards the goals of economic
viability, environmental conservation, and social justice for all.›
Introducing the World
to Cuba
The
three-vote defeat in Committee I of Cuba’s proposal (11.41) to down list
its Hawksbill sea turtle population to Appendix II and have a "one-off"
sale of its stockpile of shell as a by-product of its turtle conservation
program was only round one in efforts to introduce the world to Cuba’s
conservation efforts. Renewed debate is planned for the Plenary. The final
Committee I vote was 66 for Cuba, 38 against and 15 abstentions.
Cuba received praise for the openness and quality of its hawksbill program from range and sustainable use nations from around the globe. A handful of influential nations including the United States and Portugal, representing the European Union, called for a global workshop on sea turtle management as a delaying and diverting tactic. References to the highly migratory nature of turtles and the effects of Cuba’s desire to sell its shell stockpile on other range nation’s turtles appeared a stumbling block for some. Unfortunately, the scientific findings by visiting biologists such as Dr. Grahamme Webb, were not introduced into the debate. Dr. Webb, who has studied the Cuban model for the past five years, announced startling findings to journalists at a press conference the day before the vote. He said Cuba’s warm, sheltered waters not only provided an abundance of food, but that they also cut the maturity timeframe of Cuban hawksbills from the 30 years common to turtles elsewhere, to a scant 10 years. He also said satellite tracking showed a majority of monitored turtles did not migrate from Cuban waters. He said similar findings are characteristic of Mexico’s hawksbills. The narrowness of the vote and the surprising nature of the research
from the Cuban program demonstrated the presage of IWMC’s initial strategy
of bringing Cuba’s hawksbill program to CITES via video. Unfortunately,
that effort failed due to a lack of funding.›
COP 11:
Actions
taken Monday, April 18, on proposals related to the sustainable use of
the abundant elephant stocks in four southern African nations were victories
for the future of the animals and testament to the wisdom and patience
of the people of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
A Win for Sustainable Conservation of Elephants & the Patience of Southern African Nations The delegates’ decision to maintain the southern African nations’ elephant stocks on Appendix II is an acknowledgement of and highly deserved reward for those nations’ excellent record of managing their wildlife resources. Appendix II is a sustainable management status that allows highly controlled trade in surplus wildlife products, an important source of hard currency that benefits the animals and people alike." The outcome of deliberations on elephant proposals showed the wisdom and patience of the southern African people. Some believe their work produced a crack in relationship between Kenya and non-use nations and NGOs. Given the economic plight of their nation and depleted resources of their conservation program, Kenya may well begin a shift from its absolute protectionist stand on wildlife management to one of "sustainable use" by the next meeting of the CITES Parties. Praise is deserved by the CITES Secretariat for publicly rejecting the animal extremist groups’ illogical claims that poaching and illegal trade is precipitated by legal trade in wildlife products. Namibia said it best when that nation’s delegation told delegates during Committee I debates on the elephant proposals that the ‘no-trade’ stand of protectionist groups and nations forced developing nations with abundant wildlife "to be beggars." The potential hard currency revenues represented by trade in ivory from elephants that die from natural causes each year is fantastic. Based on a formula conservative continent-wide elephant population of 500,000 animals and a natural mortality rate of 2-5%, the most conservative estimate of this ivory donated by the elephants is 150-200 tonnes per year. That is tens of millions of U.S. dollars that can and should be used for the conservation of all of Africa’s wild resources and to help alleviate poverty, the prime cause of social unrest and environmental pollution worldwide. Millions of more dollars can be generated by trade in hides. The willingness of the COP 11 delegates to acknowledge the potential
economic, environmental, and social benefits to be derived from the use
of elephant products, including ivory, was a true sign of the cooperative
spirit and political wisdom among the African nations. Now the rest of
the world needs to support Africa and promote sustainable trade in Africa’s
resources. With trade, the hungry people of today, are the healthy, peaceful
conservators of tomorrow."›
Delegates Reject Marine
Species Menu
The
menu of proposals intended as the first step in gaining CITES oversight
of commercially important marine fish species failed to whet delegate appetites
as each was voted down.
The first to be rejected was Australia’s bid to have an "Introduction from the Sea" proposal adopted. This would have given CITES authority to regulate species taken from beyond the national water boundaries. Proposals to list three shark – the Great White, Basking, and Whale sharks – also met defeat by delegates at Committee I. The rejection of these amendments bodes well for commercial seafood
enterprises – from fisheries, to processors, to retail fish merchants and
restaurants. CITES’ regulatory bureaucracy has no experience in handling
the complexities of commercial species and would have been disastrous had
delegates not recognized the dangers at COP 11.›
Tiger Enforcement
Task Force Passes
COP
11 opened with a controversial and unprecedented recommendation of sanctions
to be levied against India for apparent failures within its tiger conservation
program. Under the auspices of the Secretariat and the Standing Committee
a political mission set off to follow the COP 9 mandate to take "bold and
unprecedented actions" on behalf of the tiger.
As reported in earlier editions of the Conservation Tribune, the Mission recommended that the world withhold funding and that CITES bring sanctions against India for failing to take adequate enforcement steps in protecting its tigers. What began as a "big stick" turned into a dangled carrot with the creation of a CITES Tiger Enforcement Task Force (CTETF). The CTETF raises certain questions among delegates. A bid to create a more universal "enforcement taskforce" was rejected at COP 9 and again at COP 10. This effort is species specific to the tiger. Balancing the preservation of national sovereignty over the management of its resources with the issue of enforcement is delicate and frustrating. NGOs literally salivate at the power of such a global enforcement office. The tiger working group created at COP 11 hoped to stifle any perception
that the tiger unit was a backdoor attempt to reinstate the previously
rejected unit by making it tiger specific and a conduit for information
on wildlife crime and criminals as well as source for technical assistance
to range states. Only time will tell if it proves a useful model for other
species or yet another bureaucratic mechanism left to languish from neglect.›
General Information
|
