USE OF THE SECRET BALLOT on most species proposals at CITES COP 10 is seen as a signal from small nations who no longer wish to feel the heat of foreign political pressure on their own political affairs and in their own conservation issues. The secret ballot at CITES is now returning cool reason to a global process designed to conserve and balance resources as they are affected by trade. 

During CITES COP 9 in Fort Lauderdale, enough Parties cooperated in changing the Rules of Procedure so that it is now easier for Parties to achieve a secret ballot in CITES committees and in Plenary.  This annoys politically powerful nations such as the United States, who have in the past held other nations hostage on CITES proposals, telling them that if they voted in ways which please the U.S., then their own proposals and interests at CITES and in other areas, would be more likely to find American support.  In some cases, issues of foreign aid, or support for World Bank loans, were used as levers to cause needed majority votes on U.S. favored CITES issues. 

At COP 10 in Harare, secret ballots were cast in Committee I on all whale proposals, the hawksbill turtle proposal, all elephant proposals, and the proposal on bigleaf mahogany. (Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 163, August 22, 1997)  All proposals brought to a vote in the Plenary session except one, were also conducted under secret ballot. 

CITES requires that all management decisions be made on the basis of relevant scientific justification for action.  All Parties to CITES, of course, are aware of this, yet they have recognized for years that some of them have been under extreme outside pressure to cast votes for reasons other than scientific ones.  Due to previous rules of procedure, a decision to proceed under secret ballot was too numerically difficult to achieve, and some Parties were even intimidated to the point that they were reluctant to openly vote to achieve secrecy.  Finally, however, smaller nations felt they had suffered too much loss of sovereignty at CITES, and voted at COP 9 to change the rules. COP 10 was the test, and a dramatic shift in votes was the result. 

The proposal to allow limited trade in hawksbill turtle products, especially those from ranched specimens, very nearly passed on secret ballot, being defeated in Committee 59 to 53, and in Plenary, 55 to 49. 

The proposal to allow trade in stockpiles of African elephant ivory, with the trade revenues to be applied to costs of elephant conservation, passed on separate secret ballots for the three countries requesting it:
 

Zimbabwe - Abstain 20 

When the African elephant was put on Appendix I in 1989, the issue was a rout, and African nations were so overwhelmed by protectionist rhetoric that there was no chance for their voices to be heard or heeded. 

The CITES mandate for an honest scientific basis for decision making was violated on that day, and the recent shift to secret ballots and consequent changes in voting patterns is a 
continuing reaction to that green fomented indiscretion.  Since that time, it has been 
recognized around the world, that Africans were severely wronged and their resources, their people, and their habitat were damaged and disregarded. 
  
Parties to the ICRW should remember the CITES COP 10 demonstration of global opinion, and take measures to ensure that conservation concerns override the traditional political pressures which have for too long caused Plenary decisions to be made on the basis of deals and political self-interest, rather than on the recommendations of the IWC Scientific Committee. 
  
In both cases, CITES and IWC, the treaties call for decisions to be honestly based on the best available scientific recommendations, and the ICRW preamble calls for the interests of whaling cultures to be heeded as equal in importance with whale conservation measures. It is now the responsibility of all Parties to the ICRW to follow the courageous lead demonstrated at CITES, and ensure that the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is similarly honored through appropriately based decisions.