IELP Goes to Thailand to Protect Endangered Species

October 11, 2004

Bangkok, Thailand

As you have been hearing throughout these journals, IELP has spent the vast majority of its time in Committee II working on implementation issues. It is one of the only nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Committee II that is working with governments to improve and clarify proposed documents and making interventions when governments do not adopt our recommendations. Unfortunately, most governments have too few resources to understand these implementation issues even though their customs and other officials will be asked to implement these documents adopted. The Bahamas, for example, has just one delegate here even though two committees operate simultaneously. Most African countries have only two delegates. As such, they have been unable to read all the documents, much less prepare thoughtful responses to the 50 or so proposals relating to implementation matters. Even the United States, with its delegation of about 30, has not been able to cover all of these issues.

Because of the lack of expertise in Committee II, it was fantastic to have a team of four last Friday when the government of Thailand asked me to assist them in Committee I during the debate over the Irrawaddy dolphin. Because the Irrawaddy dolphin has five critically endangered populations and is desirable as a show animal in dolphinaria, Thailand sought to include it in Appendix I so as to prohibit international trade for primarily commercial purposes. Thailand asked me to assist them because of my familiarity with the rules of procedure and with international trade law Japan had falsely suggested that listing the Irrawaddy dolphin in Appendix I would permit countries to impose trade sanctions against Thailand if its fisherman accidentally caught an Irrawaddy dolphin. This argument has had particular resonance here in Southeast Asia because the United States has embargoed (and continues to embargo) imports of shrimp from several countries in this region for failure to use turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in their shrimp nets to reduce turtle mortality. This is the famous "shrimp/turtle" dispute in which the dispute resolution body of the World Trade Organization eventually upheld the U.S. embargoes.

Of course it was an honor to be asked to help Thailand, but I was originally reluctant to leave Committee II at a time when two marine issues that I have worked on for several years were scheduled in Committee II. In years past I would have needed to choose one issue or the other. However, I readily passed these issues over to Debby, Erica, and Brenda. While Debby made an intervention relating to the relationship of CITES to the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, Erica was ready to discuss "introduction from the sea" (defining when a permit is needed for catches of CITES-listed species "beyond the jurisdiction of any state") and Brenda was ready to respond to Japan's allegations . This was a luxury that most governments do not have.

Moreover, even if governments have relatively large delegations, they may not have the relevant expertise. For example, the United States has proposed a definition of introduction from the sea that invokes the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). When the United States amended its definition, governments could not accept the new language, because their "UNCLOS" people are not attending the meeting. Instead, they faxed the amended text back to their home countries and are waiting to hear if the new definition is acceptable. In the case of the 25-member European Union, two countries have still not responded. If they do not, the entire EU will not be able to vote on the issue.

CITES is clearly a complex agreement that gets more complex all the time. So far, decisions have been made that require an understanding of CCAMLR, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, UNCLOS, and the International Whaling Commission, as well as dozens of technical issues relating solely to implementation and enforcement of CITES. IELP has been lucky to have a team that can handle many of these issues.

Links

CITES Secretariat
13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP13)