Parties refuse to respect the Spirit
and Wording of CITES Convention

Actions in Committee I have again demonstrated that many CITES Parties refuse to work together in the spirit of cooperation in conservation that is called for in the treaty.

Namibia’s Proposal 7 was a strong statement of that Party’s dedication to strong enforcement measures, and of the national support of a very impressive infrastructure capacity to manage their elephants and their arid habitat. Proposal 7 requested that CITES grant them the ability to annually export 2100 kg of raw ivory, and a small number of carved ivory items and some hair and leather goods, all derived only from natural mortality and managed mortality cases. After extensive discussion, with some suggestions for amendment by South Africa and even some concessions offered by Namibia in an attempt to gain any support for this management effort, one vote after another denied this country its sovereign rights to manage its abundant resources through use of the proceeds from conservative trade mechanisms. This result was an undeserved blow to a Party whose management regime and regional cooperation has resulted in a well documented elephant population increase. The votes against Namibia’s proposals were an insult to all CITES parties whose goals in the convention are to benefit conservation through careful and biologically justified regulation of trade.

Action in Committee I on Tuesday was a similar reflection of many parties’ refusal to respect CITES listing criteria. Proposal 4, which requested the long-overdue downlisting of minke whale stocks to Appendix II, was once again denied, despite Japan’s reminders that such an action would not mean a resurgence of trade in minke whales, nor would it mean that CITES disregards the jurisdiction of the IWC over cetacean management.

IWMC deplores the inappropriate sentiment that has led to the above actions. Both Namibia and Japan have demonstrated extreme competence in management actions that support conservation of their resources, and now CITES has refused to reward those efforts. By these actions, CITES Parties have also refused to respect the cultural traditions and history of sustainable use of wild resources by both nations. These traditions, together with scientific management through the requested trade mechanisms, would have benefited the conservation of the resources.

IWMC urges all CITES Parties to re-prioritize their political considerations to a configuration more respectful of the traditional knowledge and involvement of small communities, whose livelihood is based on the conservation and sustainable use of these abundant species. We share the deep regret of Japan and Namibia that CITES COP 13 participants have rejected these worthwhile proposals.