Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 17 • 7th November 2002
CITES at a Crossroad - Elephants, Whales and Stricter Domestic Measures
CITES at a Crossroad - Elephants, Whales and Stricter Domestic Measures
The use of economic incentives in the conservation of endangered species and the relationship between conversation measures and WTO rules were among the topics discussed during the first negotiating days of the 12th Conference of the Parties (COP-12) to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) on 3-15 November in Santiago, Chile. Also, discussions on resuming limited ivory trade, as suggested by five Southern African states, and Japan’s proposal to downlist certain whale species proved highly controversial, raising fundamental questions on the extent to which sustainable use of wildlife resources could and should contribute to conservation efforts.
Parties remove references to avoiding stricter domestic measures
In the first week of the Conference, delegates discussed a document on economic incentives and trade policy put forward by the CITES Secretariat (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 24 October 2002). Parties adopted the draft decision contained in the document which sets out future activities for the CITES Secretariat to further explore this issue. Parties also discussed a draft resolution, which, inter alia, encourages the use of social and economic incentives at the domestic level to achieve the objectives of the Convention, the removal of perverse incentives, and the avoidance of stricture domestic measures (i.e. domestic legislation with trade controls stricter than those required by CITES). India, the EU and Brazil opposed the draft resolution, in particular its reference to avoiding stricter domestic measures, arguing that the Convention does allow for the use of such measures. Delegates subsequently agreed to delete this reference. Parties also agreed to include language addressing the mutual supportiveness of trade, environment and development, using language from the Plan of Implementation agreed to at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. The amended resolution was redistributed on Thursday for further consideration.
Controversial ‘compromise’ on ivory trade
As expected, one of the most hotly debated species-related proposals at COP-12 was the proposal by Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe to allow one-off sales of existing ivory stocks, which would be followed later by an annual export quota. Kenya, India as well as most conservation groups were opposed to this proposal, arguing that it would increase poaching and illegal trade and thereby threaten elephants in all African states.
African range states had reportedly reached a compromise on this issue at their meeting on 29-31 October immediately prior to the CITES conference. Kenya, however, opposed the compromise, stating that it was “very disappointed with the outcome of this decision” as it would neither represent the best interest of Africa nor of its elephants. The deal would allow Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to sell their ivory stocks in order to finance conservation programmes and benefit local communities. Furthermore a revised annual export quota would be established for the five states under strict conditions and monitoring mechanisms. The compromise is now up for discussion among all 160 Parties to CITES and a final decision on the resumption of limited ivory trade is still to be reached.
Japan harpooning itself in the foot?
Also on the CITES agenda are proposals tabled by Japan to lower the protection for minke and bryde whales by transferring bryde and certain minke whales populations from Appendix I to the more permissive Appendix II. However, the wording of the proposals could outlaw some of the whaling undertaken by Japan, according to Rune Frovik from the Norwegian pro-whaling group High North Alliance. Frovik noted that Japan’s proposal specifically suggested to only allow trade “between nations”. However, much of the whale meat caught by Japan for scientific purposes came from whales caught by Japan in international waters, which were then ‘imported’ into Japan (referred to as “introduction from the sea” under CITES). This ‘unilateral trade’ conducted by Japan would not be allowed if Japan’s proposals to allow trade between nations was adopted, Frovik argued.
Opposition within Norway, traditional a pro-whaling nation, to the proposals might significantly reduce chances for its adoption. “These proposals are in conflict with Norwegian whaling policy. We have therefore asked Norway to take a strong stand against the Japanese proposals,” said Bjorn Hugo Bendiksen, vice-president of the Norwegian Whalers’ Union. “The adoption of these proposals will limit our future options to normalise sustainable whaling.” In a joint letter to Japan, the Norwegian Whalers’ Union, the Norwegian Fishermen Association and the High North Alliance have requested Japan to either radically change the annotations to the proposals or to simply withdraw them. Karsten Klepsvik, spokesman of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, also expressed doubts that progress could be made on the whaling issue. “We are not making a [pro-whaling] resolution this year because we see no possibility of succeeding in the current situation,” he noted.
For daily coverage, see IISD Linkages.
“Twelfth Meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties,” IUCN November 2002; “Tough questions on species survival,” BBC News, 2 November 2002;”Japan to push for whale exports at UN talks” REUTERS, 4 November 2002; “CITES needs stable funding as it approaches 30,” ENS, 4 November 2002; “Japan outsmarts itself,” HNA, 30 October 2002; ENB, Vol.21 No.23, 7 November 2002.