Editorial: Bans on trade in wildlife are
not appropriate conservation tools
by Eugene Lapointe

The European Union has decided to reject a call from the wildlife protectionist community for a ban on the import of wild birds. IWMC applauds the wisdom and strength of conviction that is evident in this decision. 224 environmental nongovern- mental organizations from Europe and other nations issued a lengthy statement to the EU in which they outlined their reasons for demanding a ban on wild bird imports from developing countries.

The World Parrot Trust sent the demands via email to EU Commission President Barroso on December 9, 2004. This outlined the details of the "European Union Wild Bird Declaration".

The list of protectionists includes all the "big guns" as well as dozens of small and virtually unknown NGOs that together, make up a network of those who advocate an end to all trade in wild species. Their arguments in favor of a trade and import ban include doubts that species conservation can be carried out concurrent with sustainable use, and that species of concern might become extirpated in the wild due to the wild bird trade. The NGOs also claim that their animal welfare concerns are of significance, due to alleged poor handling of wild birds in transit, with resultant high mortality and suffering. Further justifications for a ban, according to the network, include human health concerns such as transference of bird diseases (avian influenza) to people. They add allegations that Newcastle Disease is likely to be imported, thus endangering the domestic poultry industry in the twenty-five EU member nations.

In addition, the protectionist document includes the standard anti-use NGO claim that any trade encourages fraud, corruption of officials, and dishonest reports regarding the legality of conditions for trade in wild species. Their standard prescription for overcoming such alleged behavior is a total ban on the import of wild birds, as if that would be an automatic "cure all" for the alleged ills described.

The EU issued a reply to the request for a ban that covers all the above concerns and more. Robert Madelin, Director General of the European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Division, responded to the NGO document himself, and his comments were supplemented by those of his colleagues, who are Directorate Generals of Environment, Trade and Development of the Commission.

The document, entitled "Reply to the 'European Union Wild Bird Declaration'" covers all the concerns mentioned by the NGO document, and declares that "Protecting Europeans and European agriculture from the threat of infectious diseases while at the same time protecting wild birds and promoting sustainable use of wildlife resources in developing countries is an issue of high priority to the EU."

The European Union already has measures in place that sufficiently address all the concerns of the NGO network. The measures that ensure compliance with CITES are a part of this, as well as specific EU restrictions on import that include certified periods of animal quarantine in the exporting country, with veterinary inspections and evidentiary documents, and mandatory periods of quarantine in the EU importing state, with similar veterinary oversight measures. Therefore, fears of avian influenza and Newcastle Disease are not realistic. The EU Commission Director General for Health and Consumer Protection and his colleagues note that if a ban were instituted, it would not necessarily constitute a safer environment for Europeans because of the likelihood of a black market in wild birds that could be established, in which event, none of the veterinary oversight would be applied that presently protects the EU Community.

It appears that this call for a ban on import of wild birds to the EU is patterned after the formula that protectionist NGOs apply to all wildlife use issues. It alleges harm to both people and to wildlife, claims that cruelty is inherent and that damage to wild populations is an inevitable result of international trade and use.

The allegations that the wild bird trade is conducted only with endemic fraud and corruption are typical of the ploy that anti-use NGOs always use to pit nations against one another. NGOs nearly always try to cause distrust among governments, in order to lessen the frequency of State-to-state diplomacy and intergovernmental treaties and pacts of mutual trust. This, in our opinion, is part of the power play that such organizations continually attempt in order to lessen the communication and cooperation among governments in furthering mutual conservation agreements.

IWMC applauds the EU and the Commission for resisting this latest NGO move to interfere with EU policies that are a part of international conservation and trade. Congratulations to the EU and all its directors general for their coordinated and thoughtful response to this unconstructive and potentially harmful NGO demand.