IELP Goes to The Hague to Protect Endangered Species

June 7, 2007

The Hague, Netherlands

Welcome back to the IELP CITES update! We hope you are enjoying our postings and learning from our experience.

Thursday’s debates in Committees I and II of the meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) continued to address issues affecting the conservation and trade regulation of many species. The debates also offered IELPers more insight into the diplomatic workings of this highly participatory multilateral convention. With 171 country Parties to CITES, proposals for substantive, procedural, and species resolutions and actions are often difficult to agree upon. Often the debate is quite heated. For instance, when discussing charismatic species such as the African elephant and ivory trade, many Parties are diametrically opposed to trade of any kind. Others believe that such trade will aid in protecting elephants by providing governments with funds (from the ivory sales) to help with elephant conservation. This debate has been going back and forth since before elephants were listed on Appendix I of CITES (which prohibits trade for commercial purposes) in 1989.

In contrast, other proposals receive wide support and highlight the importance of fora such as CITES to achieve international agreement, and in some cases, even international consensus. During the morning discussion in Committee II (June 7, 2007), such a consensus was reached regarding timber conservation. The United States submitted Document 18.2 to the CoP in Committee II. This document proposed to draft a cooperation agreement between CITES and the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), which manages the use and conservation of tropical timber. While several countries raised concerns over specific language within the proposed document, every country present supported the need to cooperate with the ITTO. In fact, the list of countries speaking in direct support included Australia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Colombia, Germany (on behalf of the European Community – a block vote of 25 countries), Switzerland, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada, Malaysia, Senegal, and China. Greenpeace International and the Humane Society International, members of the Species Survival Network, also stated their support for the proposal. Ironically, the specific timber listing proposals for inclusion of certain tree species on Appendix II discussed in Committee I at the same time the broad consensus was being reached in Committee II were highly contentious, resulting in less than diplomatic behavior by certain parties.

Committee II, dealing mostly with technical and procedural issues, is of particular interest to IELP. In fact, IELP worked directly with a second proposal, Document 20.1. This document, drafted by the Secretariat, purported to consolidate several Appendix I species decisions (tigers, great apes, rhinoceroses, and Tibetan antelopes) and to streamline decisions affecting export quotas. Parties and NGOs were concerned by the implications of Doc 20.1 because it would remove specific protections for individual Appendix I species and create a situation in which export quotas (i.e. for hunting trophies) could more easily be granted, without the necessary non-detriment findings required by the Convention. Professor Erica Thorson highlighted this fact in an intervention (when Parties or observers are recognized by the Chair of the Committee to speak to the assembly) which touched a nerve with the Safari Club International (a pro-hunting group). General consensus was reached by Parties and NGOs to remove Doc 20.1 from discussion. This result was heartening for IELP, in part because students had worked to lobby delegates to reject the document.

Committee I dealt with the proposals to further protect various plant species. For the moment, timber species, including Spanish Cedar, are being discussed in working groups outside of the Committee meeting following withdrawal of the specific proposals by the sponsoring parties when it became clear consensus would not be reached at this CoP. Following the discussion of the various plant proposals, discussion of the first animal species, the Slow Loris, (a small primate, with at least five sub-species) began with Cambodia presenting the reasons for proposing to upgrade the Slow Loris from Appendix II to Appendix I. This small primate faces serious threats from international pet trade in and around Asia as well as threats from its use in traditional medicine. The Slow Loris does not become sexually mature for close to two years, has a long gestation period, and has only one to two babies, so removal from the wild is a serious threat. IELP hopes that the timber species and the Slow Loris will receive improved listing status under CITES.

We’ll continue to report on these important issues as discussion and debate continues. For now, suffice it to say that all of us are excited to be a part of this meeting and to be improving our knowledge of and experience with CITES.

Links

CITES Secretariat
Species Survival Network