Blog

Predictably, elephant debates took up almost a full day of the Standing Committee’s time yesterday. Elephants remain a deeply divisive issue at CITES, and yesterday’s ejection of NGO’s from the morning session clearly reflected this (see yesterday’s blog).

A multitude of important elephant issues were under discussion, including alarming and increasing trends in levels of illegal killing of elephants. The CITES programme that monitors elephant poaching, known as MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants), highlighted increasing poaching trends across Central, Eastern and Southern Africa.

In light of serious levels of poaching, illegal trade and other threats facing elephants across Africa, the importance of implementing the African Elephant Action Plan (AEAP) was clear to all attending the Standing Committee. The AEAP is a comprehensive document, compiled and approved by all African Elephant range States, which identifies all the activities required to protect elephants across their range. Countries called for donor support to the African Elephant Fund – the funding mechanism for the AEAP – so that priority activities (such as increasing wildlife law enforcement efforts to reduce illegal trafficking of ivory) could take place as a matter of urgency. There were also calls for Asia to develop and adopt its own Asian Elephant Action Plan.

Asian demand for ivory was also a hot topic for the Standing Committee. Large ivory markets in Thailand were highlighted as a matter of concern, and a deadline was set for the passing of new legislation in Thailand which would tighten up its domestic ivory trade controls.

The Standing Committee also approved a consultation process regarding the establishment of a decision-making mechanism for trade in legal ivory (effectively a list of conditions that would be required before a country could be approved to trade in ivory). The Born Free Foundation continues to strongly oppose the establishment of such a decision-making mechanism. We believe that legal trade could further increase the already insatiable demand for ivory, and lead to further illegal killing of elephants. Many fragile elephant populations simply cannot take any more pressure, and Born Free will continue to lobby against any legal trade in ivory!

See www.bloodyivory.org

After the shock of an early morning vote at the CITES Standing Committee meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, which led to the exclusion of some of the world’s leading wildlife conservation non-governmental organisations including the Species Survival Network, Born Free Foundation, Worldwide Fund for Nature, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane Society International, Environmental Investigation Agency, Elephant Family, and numerous others, from the debate on elephant poaching and the impact of the international illegal trade in ivory, a second vote at the start of the afternoon session reversed the previous decision and the Born Free Foundation, SSN and others are back in the room.

Common sense has prevailed! The previous expulsion of NGOs – the representatives of civil society and tens of millions of members of the public – was a major error of judgement. It cast a shadow over the work of the Convention and, had it persisted, would have diminished its ability to bring real conservation benefits to a range of threatened species.

The exact details of how this more enlightened second vote came about are unclear, but the Standing Committee has gone some considerable way to restoring its reputation for progressive inclusivity to the lasting benefit of species that are or may be threatened by international trade.

For an full account of how events unfolded yesterday see press release.

Blogging off

Will

After the extraordinary scenes yesterday (the multiple and, in the view of some, unconstitutional votes on Secret Ballots) today has been relatively calm.

Elephant issues will start to come up tomorrow….as will rhino….

However, today one thing struck me.

In our modern world we increasingly rely on the internet. Messages and documents can fly back and forth in the blink of an eye – sometimes.

The CITES Secretariat is rightly committed to improving the efficiency of the Convention but… a word of caution.

In our drive to use email and the internet we must make sure that some are not left behind. It’s all very well suggesting the CITES Permits can be issued electronically, that Annual Reports can be issued electronically, that CITES Notifications can be issued electronically… but what happens when electricity is in short supply, power cuts are frequent, and stable access to the internet a dream, not a reality?

Many CITES Parties cannot rely on a robust technological infrastructure and so, until that situation changes, we must make sure that all CITES processes accommodate this reality and ensure that some Parties are not disenfranchised.

Much of the world’s biodiversity resides in some of the world’s poorest countries where electricity, let alone the internet, cannot be taken for granted.

So let’s make sure the CITES family remains as user-friendly as possible for all its Members.

Blogging off

Will

STARTS:

OK. You think CITES is all about the cut and thrust of debate about whether to permit ivory trade, how to stop rhino poaching, protect tigers… and, of course it often is!

But today, the opening day of the 61st CITES Standing Committee meeting in Geneva Switzerland it was a case of…… sshhh…. secret squirrel!

The EU (supported by the UK) had proposed that the CITES Secretariat develop a paper reviewing the use of Secret Ballots as a voting mechanism at CITES Conferences of the Parties.

The debate rocked back and forth – should there be such a paper or not (it’s only a paper for goodness sake, not a proposal to change or end the use of secret ballots!)

No consensus could be achieved in the room and so it went to a vote!

On a show of hands the Proposal from the EU was passed by 9 – 7

But hold on… China is asking if they can see a list of how Members of the Standing Committee voted.

The Secretariat, caught on the back foot, say they have not kept a list.

The Chair says the only way to get such a list would be to take a Roll Call vote (where each Member calls out Yes or No). China says ‘yes please’.

The Roll Call goes ahead 8-7 in favour of the EU proposal.

However, what’s this? Dominica had left the room during the second vote and when the delegate came back he asked ‘what had occurred’?

The Chair explained and then – in a move entirely out of order with the Rules of Procedure which state that only those ‘present’ in the room may cast their votes – asked the representative of the Dominican Republic if he want to cast his vote now that he was back in the room.

Of course he readily agreed and levelled the result at 8/8

A tie!

The Chair then turned to the delegate from Switzerland (who has the role of voting to break deadlocks) and asked him to vote accordingly.

Switzerland supported the EU Proposal. The result: 9 votes in favour and 8 against. So the Secretariat will now go ahead and produce an historical review of the use of secret ballots…… a matter which remains of serious concern to many Parties and conservation experts.

Wow! Welcome to the sometimes baffling World of CITES!

Blogging off!

Will

US and EU Soft on Ivory

Hello hello!?

Just hours after the ivory debates at the CITES conference here in Doha, 24 uncut ivory tusks have been intercepted by the Civil Guard in El Masnou, near Barcelona, Spain.

Spain is currently the President of the European Union, the 27 strong community of nations that holds such sway at CITES meetings. Until yesterday the EU’s position on the two pro-trade ivory proposals (one from Tanzania and the other from Zambia) remained largely unknown.

When it came to the vote however, the EU abstained on the downlisting component of both proposals (from the no commercial trade category of Appendix I to controlled trade category of Appendix II) and voted against the ivory trade request contained in the Tanzanian proposal.

I wonder: Did they know that such a major seizure (one of the largest in Europe for some years) had just taken place?

It really is now essential that we stop fence-sitting when it comes to ivory trading. Let’s focus our attention on conserving elephants and kill the trade once and for all.

Believe it or not, the US spoke out in favor of downlisting Zambia’s elephants to Appendix II to allow commercial trade! Why are the world’s “superpowers” not “superconservationists”?

Born Free is committed to helping some of Africa’s poorest nations save their elephants. You can help too at www.bloodyivory.org.

Blogging off,

Will

Just minutes before they entered the debating chamber, delegates from the African Elephant Coalition, representing the majority of African elephant range States, were inspired by the huge vote of support from 500,000 people around the world, organized by Born Free and Avaaz.

Three hours later, the CITES votes had been cast and delegates had rejected proposals which would have permitted sales of thousands of kilos of stockpiled ivory. The voice of the people and the voice of Africa had been heard loud and clear!

To help Born Free support some of the poorest nations in Africa protect their elephants, please go to www.bloodyivory.org.

Blogging off,

Will

End of the Line for Bluefin Tuna?

The Atlantic Bluefin Tuna suffers from overexploitation in legal trade and significant illegal, unregulated and underreported fishing.

This afternoon, CITES Parties overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to give the species much-needed protection in international trade — 20 for, 68 opposed, 30 abstained.

Where is the precautionary principle? Where are the visionaries? Will CITES really wait until the species is commercially extinct before they act? Shame.

One man, perhaps more than any other, has made the plight of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna his cause célèbre. Charles Clover, formerly of The Telegraph newspaper in London, brought the world’s attention to this magnificent fish through his book End of the Line, recently made into a powerful and compelling film. His reaction to the decision by the CITES Parties to reject the proposal from the Principality of Monaco to place the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna on Appendix 1 speaks for itself:

The Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is particularly vulnerable to overexploitation because it is a late maturing, low productivity species, with two to three years between spawnings.

We must give tuna a reprieve from overfishing or I fear we will have served up extinction on a plate.

Hoping for a better day on Sunday when the meeting reconvenes.

Blogging off,

Will

Tigers, Trinkets, Soup and Sushi. Tourism and the Wildlife Trade.

At London’s prestigious Royal Geographical Society on Thursday the 18th of March the Born Free Foundation is hosting an evening talk and discussion (sponsored by Land Rover) considering the interface between the tourism industry and wild animals, both in their natural habitat and in captivity.

Out here at the CITES meeting in Doha, Qatar, we are immersed in issues that concern the international trade in wildlife – ivory, tuna, sharks, and more.

It got me thinking about the species I am working to protect and tourism in the countries that are home to these wildlife populations. The more I thought about it the more clear it all became.

Ivory is an obvious example. Buy an ivory trinket and an elephant dies. Tigers (heavily poached in the wild) are a top tourist attraction, but too many unregulated tourists run the risk of damaging or even destroying the environment on which wild tigers depend.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is on the verge of commercial extinction and restaurant-goers who buy a plate of bluefin tuna are directly contributing to its further decline. The same goes for sharks: eat sharks’ fin soup…. the link is obvious. What about coral? Tons of coral are “mined” from fragile marine environments every year. Reefs are being destroyed and the results are threefold. The reef may simply be damaged beyond any prospect of recovery; the aesthetic beauty of the reef may be lost and no longer prove an attraction for the growing leisure diving travel industry; the spawning ground for dozens of fish species will be lost with negative long-term impacts on the local communities that rely on fishing – not to mention the irreparable loss of biodiversity.

Tourism is one of the world’s greatest industries employing millions of people and generating many billions of dollars for local economies. Tourism can bring significant benefits – cultural, financial, community, employment – to global tourism destinations, but for tourism to be sustained long-term it has to increasingly embrace a responsible agenda.

In fact my hope is that, someday, irresponsible tourism will simply not exist and that the power of the tourist dollar and the commitment of the industry’s leaders will create a sustainable and compassionate industry that benefits people and wildlife.

Blogging off

Will

THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

What is it with people appointed to ‘look after the interests of animals in international trade’?

It seems that whatever the evidence, it always ends up being about what people want, not what animals and species need. CITES can be a bit like that.

Seventy to one hundred million sharks a year killed – in significant quantities – for their fins. No sustainable shark fisheries. Do we, as a responsible species (and as the species responsible) step in and halt trade until we have a proper plan? Nope.

Elephant populations across much of Africa hammered by poachers, vast shipments of illegal ivory swirling around the globe, sky-high prices for each kilo of bloody ‘white gold’. Do we, as a responsible species (and as the species responsible) step in and halt trade until we have a proper plan? Nope.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna stocks on the brink of collapse due to out of control fisheries, massive disregard for quotas and markets that will now pay up to £111,000 for a single fish. Do we call an immediate halt to all fishing and give the species a chance to step back from the edge of commercial extinction. Do we, as a responsible species (and as the species responsible) step in and halt trade and compensate fishermen whose line of work has not come to an end? Nope.

We are SO arrogant. We think we can keep on doing what we do and that we’ll be able to fix it in the meantime. I recall the words of the late Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, speaking at a CITES conference many years ago: “If there is doubt, then let the benefit of the doubt go to the species”. How right he was…. But do we have the common sense to listen? I doubt it!

To help elephants go to www.bloodyivory.org To help all wildlife go to www.bornfree.org.uk – pass it on!

Blogging off from Doha.

Will

In an extraordinary, unprecedented, and quite undiplomatic start to CITES CoP 15, a delegate from Botswana moved during plenary to have Proposal 6 removed from the Agenda. This proposal, submitted by Ghana, Mali, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Congo Brazzaville and Liberia, seeks to prevent further ivory trading and maintain the current level of CITES protection for elephants for the next 20 years.

Botswana blithely argued that it was not within the powers of CITES to introduce measures that might prevent Parties from making future proposals to amend the Appendices – in this case, prevent future downlistings from Appendix I to Appendix II – and that such a move would undermine the sovereign rights of each member State. Of course, at the 2007 CITES Meeting, Parties did, in fact, approve a nine year moratorium on ivory trade from certain African elephant range States.

However, the Chair of the Plenary, on advice from the CITES Secretariat, ruled that Proposal 6 was to remain on the agenda.

Botswana’s shameful move sent shockwaves throughout the meeting hall, especially among the many delegates who remain appalled at the proposals from Tanzania and Zambia to trade 111 tonnes of ivory from their stockpiles to China and Japan.

In the hallways outside the Conference room during a break, African delegates from across the continent reiterated their strong opposition for any further trade in elephant ivory. Here, Azizou El Hadj Issa, the Director of the office of forests and natural resources in Benin (a small west African country with only 1,200 elephants left), expresses his opposition to the ivory trade and calls on the world to support the many African countries working hard to protect their elephants from poachers:

Clearly the Parties must ultimately decide whether they want to see more high risk international ivory shipments, which could threaten the lives of tens of thousands of elephants across the continent or support measures that could reduce poaching pressure, choke off demand for ivory and make the lives of Africa’s elephants a little safer.

Please go to www.bloodyivory.org and show your support.

Blogging off,

Will