The list of unacceptable behavior patterns by EIA, in relation to CITES and consequently UNEP, brought to the attention of Dr. Toepfer includes among others:

• dissemination of false information, defamation and unfounded accusations respecting officials, the conservation agenda and/or the policies of several Parties to the CITES Convention;
• hiding valid information from a Party to the Convention, Belgium, which later sent a written complaint about EIA's behavior to the CITES Secretariat. Should Belgium have been notified in time of the information available to EIA, it could have prevented illegal activities under CITES;
• in 1989 - as per EIA's own admission - sending an undercover agent, under the disguise of a free-lance reporter, to spy on the CITES Secretariat activities and staff;
• stealing official documents from CITES Secretariat, addressed to a Party to the Convention attending a meeting in Botswana in 1989;

• direct attacks against culture and tradition of small communities such as Faroe’s Islands;
• use of unwarranted and questionable tactics, such as boycotts, against governments to stop legitimate and sustainable use of wildlife;
• several additional issues.

Among the incessant and malicious instances of misinformation, lies, falsification of evidence, threats, etc., where EIA has been either the main actor or one of the major players, the two following notable cases, should be unforgettable to UNEP. The first is the firing, in 1990, of the Secretary General of CITES (UNEP) based on totally unfounded and false accusations spread by EIA et al which was, later on, labeled to be "capricious and arbitrary" by the United Nations Tribunal of Appeal; and the second is a well-documented decision by the Standing Committee of CITES to reject a donation of $5,000 USD from EIA to the CITES Secretariat, because the Standing Committee agreed that EIA had brought the Secretariat into disrepute.

Dr. Toepfer’s terse response to IWMC’s president offered a summary of overarching criteria for selection to the Global 500 Honour Roll and a brief statement that EIA received the award for its global investigations, research and campaigns against the illegal trade in wildlife and the destruction of the natural environment and for making the public aware of many environmental problems. Dr. Toepfer suggested that these were well-documented "accomplishments".

IWMC has fully questioned this decision and the deficiency of information in Dr.Toepfer’s response in a four-page letter, requesting a thorough review of the information, sources and process used to arrive at the decision to award EIA, and the countries and persons involved in the selection process. IWMC is alarmed at the lack of information in Dr. Toepfer’s letter, and an apparent unwillingness to provide basic information on the process and considerations used in arriving at this decision. He suggested that this lack of response, to any of the major concerns, raises more serious and fundamental questions about the behavior of UNEP on this matter. It is absolutely essential that UNEP restores the prestige and credibility associated with UNEP’s Global 500 Award.

IWMC intends to pursue this issue until satisfactory resolution is achieved.