Some thoughts after CoP13
Editorial by Jaques Berney

More than one month has passed already since the closure of the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP13) and it is time to make a brief analysis (the word is probably a bit excessive) of the procedure and of the outcome of the meeting. As after elections, everybody tries to underline the successes rather than the failures but in this case, we believe that we may be rather satisfied, certainly more than after the earlier meetings, at least CoP11 and 12.

As far as the way the meeting was conducted, the general views were that the Chairman of Committee I made an excellent job, although there were perhaps some abuses, at least in the earlier sessions, in the use of the term 'consensus' when decisions were taken without votes because there were obviously some Parties opposed to such decisions. In Committee II, the Chairman was certainly less sharp and tried too often to reach a consensus when this was obviously not possible, and a decision could have been made without reopening debates and excessive postponement. In addition, it remained noticeable that the proper implementation of the Rules of Procedure was still a problem. This was especially the case when the sturgeon issue was considered at the end of the meeting of Committee II. Whether this was the fault of the Chairmen themselves or of the Secretariat, which is supposed to advise them, the question remains open. In general, nevertheless, the meeting was rather well conducted, although it is sometimes difficult, in particular for non-English speaking people to follow the debate, when amendments to draft resolutions or decisions are presented. Here also the Chairmen should be advised to give time to interpreters, so indispensable individuals, to do their job as they would appreciate being able to do it. Unfortunately, it appeared that delegates did not know how to make use of 'points of order'.

Finally, we should thank the Secretariat this time for having returned to the earlier practice, largely abandoned at CoP12, of providing documents to make available timely amended draft resolutions and decisions, with revised copies when necessary.

Let us come to the results now. As supporters of the sustainable use of natural resources, we may be very pleased with several proposals to amend Appendices I and II, e.g. the transfer from Appendix I to Appendix II of the population of Swaziland's white rhinoceros, of the bald eagle, of the Cuban population of the American crocodile, of the population of Namibia's Nile crocodile and of two orchid species. The decisions to allow the trade for commercial purposes in leather goods from the populations of Namibia and South Africa of the African elephant and, after a successful request to reopen the debate in the final plenary session, to allow Namibia to trade in 'ekipas' (traditional ivory items) incorporated in finish jewellery items for non-commercial purposes were certainly also successes, as was the adoption, for the same countries, of increased export quotas for leopard hunting trophies and skins for personal use, and of quotas of five hunting trophies of adult male black rhinoceros. The withdrawal by Kenya of its proposal to transfer the lion from Appendix II to Appendix I, to avoid an evident defeat, must be added to this list of positive outcomes.

What was rewarding also with these decisions was that they were obtained thanks indeed to excellent presentations made by the proponents, and their supporters, but, to some extent at least, because the opponents were very often unable to advance any reasonable arguments, when they were not expressing irrelevant, poor and sometimes outrageous views.

Nevertheless, in particular with respect to the African elephant, the successes were limited, although we noted with satisfaction the rejection of the proposal by Kenya to impose a moratorium on the transfer of populations from Appendix I to Appendix II and of trade in any elephant parts and derivatives. We should not forget that Namibia was unable to get an annual export quota for raw ivory and that Botswana, which is probably faced with the most concerning situation, had not even felt that it would be useful to submit such a proposal. We still seem very far from the point where CITES would allow the trade in ivory originating from the culling of elephants necessary to bring some populations back to a level compatible with the conservation of the habitat in which they occur.

Success was also far away regarding whales and the rejection, once again, of a Japanese proposal on the minke whale was the best illustration. For many Parties, politics and emotion, purportedly to please the general public, still have more weight than science for these species.

With regard to other decisions, the following must be welcomed: the adoption, without any further discussions, of revised and improved criteria for the inclusion of species in Appendix I and II; the withdrawal by Israel of its proposal to amend Resolution Conf. 5.10 on the Definition of 'primarily commercial purposes'; the adoption of measures to improve the synergy between CITES and the Convention on the Biological Diversity; that of a new resolution urging the Parties to make use of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity and of a related decision directing the Secretariat to distribute these Principles and Guidelines to all CITES Management and Scientific Authorities; and the adoption of a revised resolution on sturgeons, which, although not perfect, should help to improve the situation.

In conclusion, the progress from earlier meetings was evident but should not lead us to let up our efforts in the promotion of the sustainable use of natural resources as a tool for conservation. In addition, although progress was also realized in the coordination of such efforts, much more is still possible and necessary. We have three years before CoP14 to achieve that goal.