|
For approximately two years, concern has been expressed within the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) about the implementation of the CITES listing criteria, as currently drafted, to commercially-exploited marine species, and the consequences of the listing of such species in CITES appendices. Within that context, the FAO Committee of Fisheries (COFI) agreed on a process to analyze the CITES criteria with the view, if considered appropriate, to propose changes to CITES. At the end of June 2000, a Technical Consultation on the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species was convened by the Fisheries Department of FAO at the FAO headquarters in Rome. Sixty Members of FAO and observers from 11 intergovernmental organizations, including the CITES Secretariat, as well as non-governmental organizations, including IWMC World Conservation Trust, attended the meeting. The essential role of the Consultation was to review a document prepared by FAO, The Key Points from an Appraisal of the Suitability of the CITES Criteria for Listing Commercially-exploited Aquatic Species. The document was based on the Appraisal, a report submitted as a FAO Fisheries Circular and drafted by three FAO consultants. Unfortunately, due to the terms of reference of the Consultation and the rather rigid context of FAO, it was almost impossible to have constructive discussions about issues other than the strict analysis of the CITES biological criteria and, perhaps more significant in view of the relationship between CITES and FAO and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO). Nevertheless, the reference to aquatic species covering such a large scope, it was agreed that the review should cover only resources exploited by fisheries in marine and large freshwater bodies, and there was full support for considering only invertebrate and fish species. An important point to note was that those who prepared the only actual working document and the FAO consultants obviously lacked any semblance of working much less informed knowledge of CITES. Therefore, the document, as the consultant report, was largely focused on the CITES biological criteria, which are relevant to the inclusion of species in Appendix I. It left aside most of the issues related to listings in Appendix II. Indeed, it did not propose any change to the criteria of Annexes 2 a) and 2 b) of CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24. In spite of the context just indicated and of the fact that many participants, in particular among those representing governments, who also exhibited poor knowledge, if any, of CITES, the Consultation was finally able to improve a bit its understanding of the potential impact of CITES on commercial marine fisheries. Credit should be paid for that positive achievement to a few delegations, in particular that of Norway, and some observers, from IUCN and IWMC for instance, who insisted on the fact that, as stated by IUCN, « in most cases Appendix II is likely to be far more relevant to aquatic species and therefore FAO should give most of its attention to this aspect of the Criteria ». Although the United States « believes that CITES can be an effective adjunct to other international mechanisms, and to fisheries management in general », its comments indicated that « it is essential that participants in the consultation give far greater recognition to AppendixII… ». The FAO documents noted that the implementation of the ‘look-alike’ provisions of CITES to commercially-exploited marine species may lead to the inclusion of many species in Appendix II, without any conservation benefit but with a potential chaos in commercial fisheries. However, it missed entirely the fact that the problem is not specifically linked with the listing in Appendix II of ‘look-alike’ species. It is in relation with any listing in Appendix II since, in accordance with Article I, paragraph (b) (ii), of CITES, any readily recognizable specimen of an Appendix-II species is subject to the provisions of the Convention. The Convention does not make any distinction between Appendix-II species, whether they have been listed for conservation or look-alike reasons. It may be argued of course that many fish specimens are not readily recognizable and, therefore, should not be covered by the CITES provisions. It should not be forgotten however that the Conference of the Parties to CITES has been very restrictive so far in the interpretation of the term ‘easily recognizable’. Just to mention an example, at the last meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Gigiri, 2000), the Conference has rejected a proposal to exempt cosmetics including infinitesimal quantities of caviar, because the cosmetics indicated ‘caviar’ on packages. In addition, the trade in specimens produced in aquaculture will also be subject to the CITES control when they originate from species listed in CITES appendices. Furthermore, CITES implies, in addition to the establishment of non-detrimental findings, a considerable paperwork for any specimen of a species listed in Appendix II entering the international trade, in particular the issue of an export permit or re-export certificate for any shipment, without forgetting that many importing countries require, as a stricter domestic measure in accordance with Article XIV, paragraph 1, the issue of an import permit. The acquisition of all necessary papers may require several weeks in a number of countries, a delay in general not unacceptable for food products, in particular from fish. In conclusion, the FAO Technical Consultation was certainly interesting and useful. It has adopted a number of recommendations to the FAO Committee of Fisheries, some of which denoted a better understanding of CITES provisions and practices. However, it has also shown that a lot of work has still to be done in order to avoid serious difficulties that would be consecutive to the listing in CITES appendices, Appendix II in particular, of commercially-exploited species that the fishery industry, probably for other reasons, does not want to see listed.¨ At the same time as they received formal notice of the amendments to Appendices I and II adopted at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties and received the revised Appendices I and II valid from 19 July 2000, the CITES Parties have been informed by the CITES Secretariat, through the diplomatic channel and Notification to the Parties No. 2000/034 of 15 June 2000, that the United Kingdom has requested the inclusion in Appendix III of the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus. This new listing will enter into force on 13 September 2000. In accordance with Article I, paragraph (b), sub-paragraph (ii), fins and parts of fins are the only parts and derivatives of that species that are subject to the provisions applicable in case of international trade. It may be worth recalling that the inclusion of that species in Appendix II was rejected at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Gigiri, April 2000). In accordance with Article V of the Convention, the export of whole animals, either alive or dead (this should not be so frequent), and of fins and parts of fins of basking sharks from the United Kingdom shall require the issue of an export permit. The export of the same specimens from any other Party of the species range shall require the issue of a certificate of origin. The prior presentation of either of these documents will be required for the import of those specimens. For re-export, the country of re-export shall issue a certificate indicating that the specimen was processed in that country or is being re-exported as such. Although, under the UK proposal submitted at COP11, basking sharks occur in the temperate waters of continental and insular shelves, i.e. in territories under the jurisdiction of States, they are occasionally recorded well offshore in oceanic waters. In the case of animals taken in waters not under the jurisdiction of any State, no CITES provision would apply to such specimens, unless the Parties implement stricter domestic measures. This was worth noting.¨ The recent court victory of animal rights groups, led by U.S. Congressman Jack Metcalf, a Republican party representative from Washington State, in attempting to halt the Makah Indian whaling activities is the latest example of the not-so-latent racism and marriage of the animal groups' agenda with the politics of intolerance. On June 9th, a federal court ruled to suspend the Makah tribe's subsistence hunt for gray whales. Rep. Metcalf was the lead plaintiff in the suit that also featured co-plaintiffs, the Fund for Animals, Beach Marine Protection, and Australians for Animals. Animal groups oppose killing of animals for any reason and fan anger into hatred for any who oppose their point of view. Rep. Metcalf has a history of attempting to break via the political process all legal treaties between the United States Government and that nation's First People. In particular, he has warred against Indian fishing rights throughout his political career. While many in mainstream America publicly abhor the heritage of slaughter that relegated North America's Indian tribes to reservations, even so-called open-minded or "liberal" individuals subscribe to an "assimilate or perish" mentality toward the remaining Indian cultures in their country. Rep. Metcalf is no different. The alliance of extreme animal groups with so-called arch conservative politicians or with cultural bigots is not new. Perhaps the best example is animal activist Brigitte Bardot with the melding of racial hatred and animal activism now commonly referred to as the "Brigitte Bardot Syndrome." Bardot, an aging former screen star and sex idol, is notorious for her bigotry and hatred of foreign immigrants to her native France. She is particularly hostile to practitioners of Islam and has been convicted and fined by French courts for episodes of racial hatred. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) as well as other independent and not-so-independent animal groups have often turned to "socially conservative" members of Congress to do their bidding. New Hampshire's U.S. Senator Bob Smith is one example. Smith continually fronts HSUS/PETA efforts to end animal acts in circuses. Colorado Senator Wayne Allard was HSUS' choice to undermine support for Africa's Campfire program. Former Congressmen, California's "B-1 Bob" Dornan and Louisiana's Robert Livingston, were also PETA water carriers. Livingston resigned abruptly during proceedings to make him Speaker of the House when it was learned he solicited sex acts from female lobbyists. PETA, known for the attractiveness of its "activists," used Livingston to end vital research into brain wounds at Tulane University, research that could have saved countless human and animal lives alike. Each of these politicians is characterized as "extremely conservative" by liberals, including animal activists. The cooperation between Metcalf and animal
groups against the Makah underscores the hostility animal activists quickly
translate into intolerance and racial hatred. Animal activists protesting the
Makah hunt have waved signs reading "Save a Whale, Harpoon a Makah"
and one doggerel poem authored by Sea Defense Alliance activist Athena McEntyre
was blatantly racist. It characterized Makah as drunks and drug addicts
("I'll sniff a little meth/I'll drink a keg of beer"), violent
("I'll beat up my wife"), and social leaches ("O great
creator/Send a whale, but heck/I think while I'm waiting/I'll pick up my welfare
check".)¨ With the recent dedication of a display of Pernatty knob-tailed geckos at the Adeliade Zoo, conservationists in Australia are raising serious questions about priorities and costs associated with that government's efforts to preserve native fauna and flora. For instance, during the ten-year period from 1984-1993, the entire Australian wildlife and customs infrastructure cited 70 prosecutions that resulted in "saving" 956 animals and eggs from illegal wildlife traffickers. On the other hand, observers note, one feral cat in the "Land Down Under" is estimated to kill 800 native animals per year. Worse, unchecked clearing of native vegetation has denuded much of Australia of indigenous habitat. Australia is listed as the fifth worst nation at clearing native vegetation. While government officials such as Federal Justice and Customs Minister, Amanda Vandstone praise zoo exhibits as saving Australia's native fauna and pontificate against "wildlife smugglers" as a threat to that country's animals, perhaps the national focus should be on improving efforts to keep the country itself a wildlife-friendly environment. Putting the nation's focus on smugglers may be illusionary when such high volume, but ignored threats, as feral felines and habitat destruction are put under the conservation microscope.¨ Thilo Bode, 53, submitted his resignation as Greenpeace International's Executive Director on July 18 effective when the organization's Board of Directors selects a successor to run the $110 million NGO. According to news reports, Bode is leaving for "personal reasons." During Bode's tenure, Greenpeace and its national affiliates redoubled its tactics of harassment and condemnation against a range of global issues from exploration for oil to research seeking to provide strains of crops needed to eliminate hunger by meeting the food demands of a growing human population. To salvage Greenpeace's public persona as crusaders for the environment, Bode was often called upon to apologize for or wrist slap the more radical campaigns of his organization that attacked farmers and made claims lacking even a hint of scientific integrity about alleged environmental threats. With legislative and regulatory bodies such as the European Union placated by Bode's apparently conciliatory words, Greenpeace itself continued to attack the very activities that promise to relieve poverty and enable various cultures worldwide to conserve nature's resources. Bode is not the first Greenpeace official to leave the organization. A number of scientific advisors including Patrick Moore, who was among the handful of "activists" who founded Greenpeace in 1971, have publicly condemned Greenpeace as no longer pursuing a course of true concern for the environment. Moore condemns his former colleagues as having abandoned science and logic in favor of class warfare against corporations and any other activity that can catapult the group into international headlines. Canadian scientist Dr. William Plaxton also resigned his affiliation and is outspoken in his objection to Greenpeace's irrational campaign on genetically modified crops. Plaxton likens the anti "GMO" crusade to the worst excesses of the anti-rational "Dark Ages" in humankind's history. Bode's resignation has NGO watchers leery of his motivation. His persona as a "moderate" comes from a calculated effort to insure Greenpeace continued to receive monetary support from the Government of Denmark and to preserve its influence within the European Union. He did nothing to stop what many would call Greenpeace's dangerous and bogus activities worldwide. That fact has prompted some to think he is angling for "acceptance" as a "voice of reason" at an academic or corporate setting from which he will operate as a "mole" quietly continuing to spread the radical and illogical doctrine of his "former colleagues."¨ IWMC invites you to visit for a good
laugh, While New York City extols artistic conceptions of cows integrated into modern city life, a United States Federal Judge ruled the extreme animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) could not enter a "protest" cow in the art display without permission of the exhibit's organizing committee. The citywide exhibit entitled, "Cow Parade," has 500 life-size fiberglass cows placed throughout Manhattan Island. One cow, dressed in judicial garb, stands before the federal court complex. Another, attired in high fashion apparel, greets shoppers outside Bloomingdale Department store. PETA hoped to enter a cow festooned with anti-meat protest signs. The organizing committee said no. PETA went to court. U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero ruled against the PETA protest. Judge Marrero found the art display was not a "traditional forum such as a street or park that are open to public assembly and debate." He said the exhibit was created for a "limited purpose" and therefore did not need to meet the "free speech" standards protected by the U.S. Constitution. PETA said it intends to continue its legal challenge. Meanwhile, the animal rights group was allowed to display an alternative "cow" dressed in rubber clothes designed to look like leather. PETA's cow is in Greenwich Village, the center of that city's "fetish" community.¨ An Alaska trapper, Eugene Johnson, won a jury-directed verdict totaling $190,000 against Friends of Animals (FOA) and a wolf-biologist, Gordon Haber, whose work is funded by the animal rights group. The Tok, Alaska jury found Haber guilty of violating that state's law prohibiting interference with lawful trapping in that state. In 1997, Haber freed a wolf from Johnson's legally set snare. The wolf died a few weeks later. Friends of Animals, a Connecticut-based animal rights group led by Pricilla Feral, has led numerous efforts to outlaw hunting and trapping in Alaska. Animal rights colleagues say Feral (who had her surname legally changed to better identify with the animals) is open in acknowledging her quest to make Alaska a vast animal preserve free of human interference. The Tok jury ordered FOA to pay Johnson $150,000. Haber must come up with $35,000 in damages, $500 for the lost wolf, and $3000 for expenses and damaged equipment. Johnson took Haber to court after Haber distributed a video of the wolf release with Haber claiming full responsibility. Johnson felt Haber used the incident to harm the trapper's reputation and fundraise for anti-trapping animal rights groups.¨
|
 |
IWMC World Conservation Trust |