Editorial During the 11th Conference of the Parties to CITES (Gigiri, Kenya April 2000), delegates and the CITES Secretariat alike refrained from decisive debate and action on several agenda items dealing with cetaceans out of deference to the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Professional courtesy and a general lack of familiarity with IWC among CITES delegations appeared the determining factors in many nations' hesitance to memorialize scientific fact concerning the inappropriateness of retaining Appendix 1 ratings for certain whale species. To those familiar both with CITES and IWC, the importance of CITES' delegations becoming factually and objectively versed on IWC was glaringly apparent. IWMC-World Conservation Trust attended the 52nd meeting of the IWC in Adelaide, Australia this past July. The debates, political maneuvering and ideological alliances that are all too characteristic of the reality of IWC remain very much intact from meeting to meeting. Contrary to its statutory mandate and reports issued from the meetings, IWC is a complex and interesting institution that is both an intriguing and perplexing experience, particularly for first time observers. Anyone who has not experienced a round of IWC meetings firsthand will have an extremely difficult time fathoming the various, multi-faceted, and very dynamic layers of history, politics, and personalities that are IWC. IWMC-World Conservation Trust officers, staff, and associates
have decades of direct experience with IWC, including participation to its last
seven meetings. Therefore, in an attempt to fill the information void among many
CITES delegates about the structure and inner workings of IWC, IWMC-World
Conservation Trust will strive between now and the 12th Conference of
Parties to CITES to illuminate and inform our colleagues about this important
subject. |
|||||||||
 |
IWMC World Conservation Trust |