IELP Goes to The Hague to Protect Endangered Species

June 8, 2007

The Hague, Netherlands

Greetings from CITES. Our adventure into the world of international trade and the conservation of species continues. Friday brought us new opportunities for insights into the complex workings of CITES negotiations and occasion for frustration in our efforts to protect two shark species.

Committee I, the venue for deliberating species listings — whether to list or not list, whether to uplist (create stronger protections for a species by moving a species from Appendix II or III to Appendix I or II), or downlist (reduce protections for a species by moving the species from Appendix I or II to Appendix II or III), or remove protections by removing the species from CITES listings altogether — considered two shark proposals submitted by the European Community (EC) to include (new listing) the Porbeagle and the Spiny Dogfish on Appendix II. A listing on Appendix II does not result in a ban on trade, as Appendix I effectively does. Per Article IV of the treaty, an Appendix II listing increases the protection by requiring an export permit for the listed species. This permit to export is dependent on a non detriment finding (NDF) by the exporting country, meaning that in order for an export to proceed the CITES Scientific Authority (SA) in the country of export must determine that the proposed trade / export, will not be to the detriment of the survival of the species in the wild.

Unfortunately for conservationists, and for the sharks, neither proposal passed. This is not because it was resoundingly unsupported, but because CITES listing requires approval by a two thirds majority, which can be a high bar to clear. Both shark proposals had a simple majority in support. In both instances very few additional votes in support would be required to secure an Appendix II listing. In fact, each proposal received about 62% approval – only 4% short of the required two-thirds.

This voting process is a very interesting aspect of the workings of a CITES Committee. For every item discussed — whether it be a proposal for listing, a species specific proposal such as a proposal for export quotas for black rhinoceros, a procedural proposal such as a budget discussion item, or a substantive issue such as developing CITES strategic vision — the first point of order, the option preferred by the country submitting the proposal under discussion, is an attempt to gain clear consensus of the Parties. Failing clear consensus, the Chair asks the submitting country if they wish to take a vote. In all cases that we have witnessed in the course of this conference to date the answer has been "Yes."

However, a failed vote is not necessarily the end of the story for a proposal. The meeting of the CoP begins and ends with a Plenary Session, "Plenary", which is a session attended by all members where Committees I & II reconvene together. The submitting Party can elect to re-open the vote in the Plenary when it reconvenes at the end of the Conference. When asked by the Chair whether it wanted to withdraw the accompanying procedural document, consideration of which is dependent on the passage of the shark proposals, given the rejection of two of the three substantive shark proposals, Germany responded that it was giving thought to re opening the vote in Plenary and requested time to consult with representatives from the other EC countries on this matter before deciding to withdraw. As it stands, it appears that we will see these two shark proposals back on the floor for a vote next week in Plenary. This will be an interesting event for IELP in that a number of us were members of the shark strategy group and worked actively on advocating for these shark proposals and because it will provide more insight into the complex workings of CITES.

Today was a good day (in terms of conservation) for several species. The Slow Loris, discussed in yesterday's blog, was approved for listing on Appendix I by consensus. The Bobcat, which the U.S. had proposed to delist completely, was kept on Appendix II by a consensus rejection of the U.S. proposal. On the whole, we have been witness to a variety of outcomes and continue to benefit from a diverse range of experiences.

Today’s final "experience" consisted of a beach party organized by the Dutch government for delegates and NGOs. Although the weather was not as cooperative as could be hoped, IELPers had great fun eating, chatting, and dancing with NGOers and delegates. Several of us made friends with delegates from Togo, the Republic of Congo, and Benin. As the night's crowning achievement, picture the following scene:

A live Dutch band playing Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama with people dressed in their best work cloths dancing, laughing, singing, and enjoying each others' company. Whatever the issues were during the day, and in spite of points of contention, it was encouraging to see all of these people representing many different interests and countries able to find some common ground through laughter and dancing.

What a great way to end the first week of our CITES adventure!

Links

CITES Secretariat
Species Survival Network