It took no more than a second to get over our surprise and our answer was that the Parties indeed are the ‘Boss’. This means the Parties as a whole, the Conference of the Parties in other words. Although this is not specifically stated in the Convention, the Conference of the Parties is for sure its governing body, the only one that may take decisions binding the Parties (amendments to Appendices I and II), unless they enter specific reservations. In accordance with Article XI, paragraph 3(e), it may also adopt, where appropriate, recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the Convention. Accordingly, the Conference of the Parties has adopted a large number of resolutions and other decisions.

It is through the adoption of such a resolution that the Standing Committee of the Conference of the Parties was established, at the second meeting of the Conference (CoP2, San José, 1979) to act in between CoPs, on the condition that it does so within the policy agreed by the Conference. Subject to this condition, we may consider that the Standing Committee is also a ‘boss’ acting on behalf of the Conference, and so entitled to make recommendations but not to take any decisions binding the Parties. In no circumstances however, may the ‘Boss’ be an individual Party, a group of Parties or any body established by the Convention or by the Conference of the Parties to facilitate the implementation of the Convention. This includes the Chairman of the Standing Committee and especially the Secretariat, which is composed of international civil servants, headed by the Secretary General, who, by definition, are supposed to serve the Parties and to accomplish a number of functions determined by the treaty or entrusted to it by the Conference of the Parties

We understand that it may also appear amazing to a number of people that we have felt necessary to repeat above what should be known by all those involved with CITES work. Nevertheless, this should not be so amazing for those who have attended the most recent CoPs or meetings of CITES Committees, in particular the last meeting of the Standing Committee held in Geneva, in April this year. Let us concentrate on the latter.

Although the provisional Agenda of the 49^th meeting of the Standing Committee did not include an item on the preparation of the 13^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to be held in Thailand, as decided at CoP12, such an item was added to the Agenda, at the request of a Committee member. The concern of that member, as well as of a number of other representatives of Parties, was mainly the date for the meeting, due to the rumour circulating that it should take place in late 2004, i.e. close to the IUCN Conservation Congress, scheduled for November 2004 in Bangkok. While the discussion was to take place by the end of the meeting, it had to be considered earlier when the Committee dealt with the budget cycle, an issue left to it at CoP12 in view of the reluctance of many Parties to increase the interval between meetings to three years, as proposed by the Standing Committee at the suggestion of the Secretariat. The Secretary General admitted that the IUCN Congress generated difficulties but stated that a solution acceptable to both CITES and IUCN, agreed by Thailand, had been found and that CoP13 would be held on 3 to 15 October 2004.

The Chairmen of the Animals and Plants Committees expressed concerns and we also had the feeling that the date was being imposed on the host country, or at least that the Secretariat had not given Thailand much chance to argue in favour of a later date, in early 2005. In addition, it was noticed that to hold two such important meetings at the same period of the same year would likely have detrimental effects on the collection of funds for the Sponsored Delegate Project, the importance of which for an equitable participation in CoPs was pointed out during the meeting.

It is under these circumstances that the issue was raised again at the end of the meeting, with the hope that a postponement of CoP13 could be agreed for various reasons, including that of common sense. However, this was without taking account of the uncompromising attitude of the Secretariat. After expressing its understanding for concerns and after having explained that the occurrence of Ramadan at the time of the meeting was not a significant problem, of which care had already been taken, the Secretariat stated that the determination of the date of a CoP was not an issue for the Standing Committee when there was an agreement between the Secretariat and the host country. It concluded by saying, therefore, that the matter had been resolved!

No member of the Committee, no observer Party contested such an unbelievable statement, which was not based on any resolution or other decision of the Conference of the Parties, and even less on the text of the Convention. None even asked on which basis it was made. Of course CITES, in its Article XI, paragraph 2, provides that "the Secretariat shall convene regular meetings at least once every two years, unless the Conference decides otherwise" [emphasis added], and in Article XII, paragraph 2(a), that it shall arrange for and service meetings. However, to convene a meeting and to arrange for it does not mean that the Secretariat may decide, even in agreement with the host country, the time and venue of a meeting. This is clearly the role of the Conference of the Parties, as stated in Article XI, paragraph 4. As CoP12 was unable to make a decision about the time of the meeting, and although it is perfectly logical that the Secretariat and the host country have to make a commonly agreed proposal, nothing may prevent the Conference of the Parties, or the Standing Committee acting on its behalf, to have different views and to decide otherwise.

This was not the case and, in the corridors, but in the corridors only, many people continued to complain.

In these circumstances, as it was obvious, for unknown reasons (lack of knowledge, lack of interest, surprise, etc.), the Standing Committee and the other represented Parties had forgotten who was the ‘Boss’.