|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introducing the World to Cuba
The three-vote defeat in Committee I of Cuba’s proposal (11.41) to down list its Hawksbill sea turtle population to Appendix II and have a "one-off" sale of its stockpile of shell as a by-product of its turtle conservation program was only round one in efforts to introduce the world to Cuba’s conservation efforts. Renewed debate is planned for the Plenary. The final Committee I vote was 66 for Cuba, 38 against and 15 abstentions. Cuba received praise for the openness and quality of its hawksbill program from range and sustainable use nations from around the globe. A handful of influential nations including the United States and Portugal, representing the European Union, called for a global workshop on sea turtle management as a delaying and diverting tactic. References to the highly migratory nature of turtles and the effects of Cuba’s desire to sell its shell stockpile on other range nation’s turtles appeared a stumbling block for some. Unfortunately, the scientific findings by visiting biologists such as Dr. Grahamme Webb, were not introduced into the debate. Dr. Webb, who has studied the Cuban model for the past five years, announced startling findings to journalists at a press conference the day before the vote. He said Cuba’s warm, sheltered waters not only provided an abundance of food, but that they also cut the maturity timeframe of Cuban hawksbills from the 30 years common to turtles elsewhere, to a scant 10 years. He also said satellite tracking showed a majority of monitored turtles did not migrate from Cuban waters. He said similar findings are characteristic of Mexico’s hawksbills. The narrowness of the vote and the surprising nature of the research from the Cuban program demonstrated the presage of IWMC’s initial strategy of bringing Cuba’s hawksbill program to CITES via video. Unfortunately, that effort failed due to a lack of funding. |
