"... During the past three years, generous support from IFAW has made a
critical difference in the CSG's ability to carry out its CITES and Red List
responsibilities... Grants from the Convention on Migratory Species, Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society, Ocean Park Conservation Foundation, WWF-US,
WWF-Pakistan, and the Chicago Zoological Society have allowed CSG members to
implement Action Plan projects around the world. A longstanding arrangement with
the Center for Marine Conservation, which administers funds on the CSG's behalf,
has been vital in facilitating our work".
Considering where the funding of the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group
originates from, and who administers the CSG funds, one can now easily
understand why this IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group had such a bias and
unscientific attitude prior to and during the last two CITES meetings. The
following sentence is revealing: "...generous support from IFAW has made
critical difference in the CGS's ability to carry out its CITES...
responsibilities..." Is it the same IFAW which has been rejected twice
as member of IUCN? Does this explain, at least partially, the attitude of the
IUCN/CGS towards the proposals for transfer of certain populations of whales
from Appendix I to Appendix II, at COP 10 and COP 11 of CITES?
