|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Editorial:
Trade Versus the Myth of “No Trade”
First and foremost, the existence of CITES and the growing number of signatory nations (currently at 153?) to the international accord on conserving species involved in international trade is, on its face, evidence that those nations represented at COP 11 agree on the importance of conserving the world’s wild resources. On that point, there can be no substantive debate. Where participants disagree is over their support for or opposition to trade in these resources. For at least as long as CITES has been in existence, advocates of trade in species of wild fauna and flora have embraced the concept of sustainable trade and hold it forth as an effective technique to encourage conservation. Opponents see trade as prelude and precipitant to the wanton, illegal endeavors by those who possess no moral or ethical limits to their predation on animals or plants. To date, the passion of the debate and inflammatory charges made largely by NGOs and nations espousing the non-trade ideology have distracted sustainable use advocates from presenting a concise and cogent defense of trade. That heated controversy also spared the non-trade faction from a public scrutiny of the myth of “no trade.” In fact, the lack of a compelling argument for trade has enabled non-trade advocates to enjoy an unchallenged arena from which they have colored the public, press and policy-makers’ perspectives with the charge that trade is cruel, inhumane, greed-driven, and a threat to the survival of the planets “endangered” species. From the point of view of Sustainable Use Forces, that charge must never be allowed to stand unchallenged or uncorrected. In Defense of Trade Throughout mankind’s history, trade has played an important role in the improvement of the human condition. It fosters relationships among individuals, communities, cultures and nations. It opens closed borders and closed minds allowing one people to jettison ignorance, suspicion, and fear of another. It provides wealth that in turn is used for food, shelter, education, health care as well as individual and cultural advancement. Most important it is the chief factor in eliminating the greatest threat to wild resources as well as in combating the chief cause of pollution, namely poverty. Look at any impoverished nation or people. Conservation of wildlife and wild places is not a priority. Survival is. Field and stream alike are stripped of sustenance and more often than not befouled with human waste. Wildlife is consumed and habitat destroyed in hopes of scratching from its soil some (often barely) life-sustaining crop. It’s a time-tested pattern applicable to every nation, including today’s high-tech, highly developed super powers. Not until the United States was able to feed its people did predation of its wildlife cease and conservation of wildlife and wild places become a national priority. As recently as the dawn of the 20th Century, wildlife in the U.S. was on the brink of extinction. Today, thanks to trade and the broad distribution of the wealth it created, that nation’s wild resources are flourishing. As that nation’s wealth grew, so too grew its ability to fund and manage conservation tasks. The Myth of “NO TRADE” Opponent of trade, have adroitly created a vision of the world where the elimination of such distinctly human activities as trade lead to a Utopian world where animals abound; streams flow with cool, pure water; vistas filled with verdant fields and majestic mountains soaring into crisp, clear air. Nowhere is evidence of the hand of man. It’s an alluring vision to be sure, particularly when it is juxtaposed with a bleak scenario where their projected images of legal trade begets illegal poaching, pollution, denuding of nature’s landscape. To be candid, the negative perception of trade, just like its positive counterpart, is based in a historical context. Where distribution of wealth is closely held by a few and the benefits of trade are not enjoyed by the broadest range of a nation’s people abuses are found. Certainly, the history of industrial nations is one filled with inconsiderate exploitation and nature suffered the consequences. However, today the concept of sustainable use and the driving model for modern global corporations is one where economic prosperity is intrinsically linked with environmental compatibility and social justice. This three-pronged approach does not tolerate environmental or social abuse. Nevertheless, the non-trade advocate’s vision allows no room for even the possibility of trade as economically and environmentally sustainable or socially just. To non-use NGO’s and nations alike, trade is evil, and in the message delivered by many of their spokesmen here in Kenya, “must be ruthlessly destroyed.” The flaw in the “non-use” ideology is that it is a vision of the world as it “ought to be;” not of it as “it is.” The reality is that there is no such thing as “no trade.” The cessation of legal trade eliminates the wealth that allows a country to afford to regulate, supervise, manage, and enforce conservation measures. By taking management and enforcement from the mix (as Kenya recently did when it cut its wildlife enforcement budget in half from $600,000 in 1997 to $300,000 in 1999), illegal trade fills the void as poaching did in Kenya. The legal trader is replaced by the poacher. The conservation official is replaced by the black market entrepreneur. Wildlife suffers from a price placed upon its head, hide, and meat by the underground, uncontrolled economy. Legal trade does not drive illegal trade. The lack of legal trade does. That is the message sustainable use forces must carry to CITES. It’s the principle upon which CITES and wildlife can and will flourish. |
