he
CITES Secretariat recently caused some regrettable confusion among the
fishermen of Caspian States when it moved precipitously to ban exports of
beluga caviar on 22 October.
This sudden action was peculiar because the Secretariat
seemingly made no effort to validate information they had received that
claimed that the coordinated governmental approach in the Caspian area,
required by Decision 11.58, no longer existed. Only when Notification 59
drew contrary responses from the Caspian States did the Secretariat rescind
its decision, by way of Notification 59a, on 8 November.
Even then, rather than admit to its mistake in rushing to
false judgment, the Secretariat chose to hide its error by stating that the
required approach had now been "re-established" by the Caspian
States.
Notwithstanding this sequence of events, the Secretariat
acted beyond its powers. Decision 11.58 requires Parties of the Caspian and
other areas to inform the Secretariat of its coordinated export and catch
quota levels, but specifies no circumstances under which they may suspend
them.
While procedures do not exist for dealing with the
particular circumstances that arose, it is clear that the initial
communication to the Secretariat, which came indirectly through a
non-Caspian state, should have prompted questions to the states of the
Commission on Aquatic Bioresources of the Caspian Sea and been referred
either to the Standing Committee or to COP12.
By being both precipitous and presumptive in its actions
and behaving inappropriately even when it tried to rectify its error, the
Secretariat has understandably upset the Caspian States. They deserve an
explanation and an apology. 
|
Commercialism
November 13, 2002
|
Making
money is sometimes portrayed as a dirty business, particularly by those who
earn a good living from large animal rights fundraising organizations. To
these groups, eco-tourism – particularly in Africa – is promoted as a
harmless and virtuous "alternative" for communities that might
otherwise utilize charismatic wildlife resources in a sustainable manner.
Eco-tourism is rarely looked at critically and provides
convenient cover to the campaigners because it allows them to circumvent
the charge that their activities destroy local communities and traditional
cultures.
Eradicating traditional livelihoods doesn’t matter as
much, so the argument goes, if people can still make a living. Of course,
it is not the case that all those who earn a living from wildlife could
suddenly become successful tour guides for wealthy westerners.
And whether or not they would want to shepherd tourists,
which to the campaigners is simply a matter of "education", doesn’t
matter either if some statistics can be published that purport to show they
would all be financially better off. If it is really that lucrative, why
aren’t all these campaigners racing to migrate to Africa themselves?
In Kenya, where eco-tourism is pursued most relentlessly,
the Maasai people have become so business conscious that they now charge
tourists anything ranging from one to fifty dollars just to photograph
them. Now IWMC would not try to dissuade the poor from making money from
tourists but we worry whether eco-tourism is now turning one of the world’s
most famous tribes into eco-beggars, and its very existence into a
commodity.
We sincerely hope that this is not the natural course for
eco-tourism and that the traditional characteristics of the Maasai, which
we respect and admire, are not subsumed by this new commercialism.
