Let's look at the facts

Bring back science in determining the trade in endangered species

BUST

Once upon a time, an international organization called the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna was formed. It should have been called the Hopeful Alliance of Nations to Actually Do Some Good for Conservation of Endangered Species Involved in Trade, but HANADSGCESIT would perhaps have been too many letters. After the recent charade at the Doha triennial meeting, perhaps CITES should now be called Business as Usual, Save the Trade, or BUST for short.

Let’s look at the facts. Those who vote are Government officials from the representative nations, who might or might not listen to advice from scientists, conservationists, and their ministries of environment. More likely, these individuals have no idea of any endangered species’ plight, and attend the conference to enjoy the free food, accommodation, perks, additions to salaries, and the parties.

Votes can be bought

At the Doha conference, for example, Japan was forewarned that marine species like the bluefin tuna were to be considered by CITES for Appendix 1. These tunas deserve to be listed as an endangered species as populations have staggeringly declined due to overfishing and relentless commercial trade. Politics took over – Japan insists on providing sushi, and 80% of bluefin tuna is consumed in Japan. A single bluefin tuna in Japan can sell for as much as £110,000! The word endangered in Japanese seems equivalent to little more than the phrase “eat them while you still can”. So Japan paid to fly in a dozen or more fisheries ministers from Africa (who are guaranteed not to know anything about tunas) to ensure they voted against a possible CITES listing of the species. A clear example of vote rigging? Japan went so far as to host two receptions where bluefin tuna was intentionally served as part of the menu. Shock, horror, revulsion by delegates? No way. Japan insisted that the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) continue to take care of tunas according to their past standard of excellent performance. ICCAT has been well-criticized – many have called it the International Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna. CITES went along of course, better to delegate responsibility than take it on, and more sushi was probably served in celebration.

But let’s not blame Japan alone – other vested interests were at work too. The tuna vote at CITES might have gone differently if Europe stood firm, but this was foiled by Joe Borg, the EU Fisheries Commissioner. Mr Borg comes from Malta where the tuna fishery is worth about £80 million per year, and it seems his arguments were as convincing to European delegates as Japan’s were to the African fisheries ministers.

Not surprisingly, the tunas were voted down by CITES delegates, as were deserving species of sharks. Elephants “survived” a challenge by Zambia and Tanzania to be downlisted. Perhaps those delegations did not do enough to provide receptions featuring elephant biltong? And the plight of polar bears was also turned down as were overexploited species of corals made into jewellery at a great rate. Another Japanese victory by the way.

Lions, a species clearly affected by trade as we have demonstrated in past posts on this site (less than 20,000 lions of all ages remain on the continent today, while close to 12,000 wild-shot trophies – adults only, and mostly males – have been exported since 1992) were not even included in the agenda. The last time they were brought forward was by Kenya in 2004, but Kenya was convinced to withdraw the application based on promises to hold meetings among range states to design national lion conservation programmes.

For those who are sceptical of the back-room politics, consider this message posted before the 2004 meeting on the website of Conservation Force, closely allied with Safari Club International, a very prominent and influential pro-hunting lobby:

“Kenya’s proposal to list the African lion on Appendix I is, of course, the greatest threat to the hunting community at this Conference of the Parties. We have expended every possible effort to defeat this proposal, which has come under a great deal of attack. In response to those attacks, Kenya has simply amended its proposal to address some of the points raised and stubbornly persisted. Kenya has been fortified by the Species Survival Network (SSN), a coalition of protectionist and animal rights organizations led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)… This expensive fight will leave Conservation Force’s treasury bare. Moreover, we must host an all-of-Africa lion symposium this March if we are to stay ahead of the protectionists and animal rights interests. We most desperately need support. All contributions are tax deductible. Mail to Conservation Force, One Lakeway Center, 3900 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 1045, Metairie, LA 70002-1746.”
http://conservationforce.org/resources/resourceslionhuntingsurvive.html

Conservation force is headed by John Jackson III, a lawyer and a past president of SCI who has an extensive CV and list of testimonials about how successfully he represents the hunting community. http://conservationforce.org/directorsjackson.html

Mr Jackson is invited to, and doubtless works the back rooms of, all CITES meetings. At Doha, he was photographed having lunch with Debbie Peake, representing the Professional Hunters Association of Botswana.  //conservationforce.org/images/cites_cop15_001.png

As Botswana instituted a second moratorium on lion hunting recently, would it not have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall? 
Time for common sense again

CITES has become a sad joke of an organization. Instead of allowing informed votes, ballots are cast by individuals capable of being influenced. Backroom meetings seem more important than conservation realities. Very many taxpayer dollars were spent, and the outcome of Doha reflected very little conservation sense. Time to take a look at how to change CITES? You bet. Let’s have science as key to decisions, let’s have delegates identified by their knowledge and not their political status, and let’s have reason take precedence over receptions. In short, let’s get back to common sense for an organization whose existence is defined by us on the premise of controlling trade in endangered species. We pay for CITES, and we can hopefully make sure things change by their next meeting in 2013.

Comments