Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 6 • Number 39 • 14th November 2002
CITES Moves On Whales And Ivory
Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), meeting for their 12th Conference in Santiago, Chile, on 4-15 November, rejected a proposal by Japan to allow limited trade in certain populations of whales. While they approved a one-off sale of ivory stockpiles in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa, they turned down two ivory-related proposals from Zimbabwe and Zambia. Parties also rejected a draft resolution put forward by the CITES Secretariat on economic incentives and trade policy.
Of whales and elephants…
Delegates voted against a proposal by Japan to transfer most northern hemisphere populations of Minke whale and the western North Pacific population of Bryde’s whale from Appendix I (no trade allowed expect in exceptional circumstances) to Appendix II (limited trade under strict controls). These and other whale species are currently protected under the International Whaling Commission, which established a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. At the IWC, whaling nations such as Iceland, Norway and Japan have been pushing hard for a lifting of the moratorium to allow for limited whaling activities. Both Norway and Iceland hold a reservation on the moratorium, which allows them to legally resume whaling.
Countries adopted proposals by Botswana, Namibia and South Africa to allow one-off sale of ivory stockpiles, collected from elephants that died of natural causes or as a result of government regulated problem animal control. Botswana and Namibia had previously withdrawn their request to institute annual sales of ivory in addition to the one-off sales. Any future one-off sales will be supervised through a rigorous control system and will not occur before May 2004 to allow for the gathering of baseline data on population and poaching levels. The CITES Standing Committees can suspend trade if they find the importing or exporting countries to be in non-compliance with their regulations.
However, parties rejected Zimbabwe’s request for a one-off sale. Kenya and the US, in particular, had raised concerns regarding Zimbabwe’s current ability to adequately enforce laws, manage wildlife, and control the domestic ivory trade. Parties also rejected Zambia’s proposal to down-list its elephant population from Appendix I to II. The US and Kenya again opposed the proposal, with the US arguing that Zambia’s elephant population did not meet the criteria for down- listing. India and Kenya had been the strongest opponents to re-opening ivory trade due to concerns that it would revive the ivory industry and lead to widespread poaching.
Many conservation groups greeted the decision to allow limited sales for the three African countries with anger, describing it as a "death warrant" for elephants. "Poachers, smugglers, and profiteers are not interested in the fine print that outlines the conditions attached to future ivory sales, nor in the 18-months delay before any sale can take place", said Will Travers, president of the Born Free Foundation and chairman of the Species Survival network. The groups strongly criticised the US for supporting the ivory trade for the first time in CITES history. "We condemn the United Sates for today’s disappointing departure from its past position on this issue," said Teresa Telecky of the Wildlife Trade Programme for the Humane Society of the US.
Countries reject resolution on economic incentives and trade policy
Parties rejected a draft resolution on economic incentives and trade policy put forward by the CITES Secretariat (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 24 October 2002), which, inter alia, encouraged the use of social and economic incentives at the domestic level to achieve the objectives of the Convention and the removal of perverse incentives. The draft resolution furthermore called on Parties to avoid the use of stricter domestic measures (SDMs, i.e. domestic legislation with trade controls stricter than those required by CITES) and to favour instead the adoption of incentive measures at the international level. The reference to avoiding SDMs was rejected by India, the EU and Brazil, arguing that the Convention did allow for the use of such measures. Many regard SDMs as the most likely potential point of conflict between CITES and WTO rules, believing that they open the door for unilateral, arbitrary and restrictive trade measures that are allowed under CITES (see BRIDGES Vol.2 No.2).
Nevertheless, the CITES Secretariat will conduct further work on the use of economic incentives, following the adoption of a draft decision which sets out future activities for the Secretariat to further explore this issue.
All decisions by the CITES Parties will be submitted for adoption by the final plenary on 15 November.
Documents of the meeting are available at http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml. For daily coverage, see http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/cites/COP12/
"Elephant ivory sales approved for three nations," ENS, 12 November 2002; "Nations vote to protect minke, bryde’s whales," ENS, 8 November 2002; ENB Vol. 12 No. 20-28, 3-14 November.