IELP Goes to Thailand to Protect Endangered Species

October 12, 2004

Bangkok, Thailand

This is the last day of Committee meetings, and we have EXCITING NEWS on minke whales and the Great White Shark. This morning, CITES Parties voted to continue to protect minke whales from overexploitation despite serious efforts to remove species protection. This afternoon, after a long fight that began at COP 11, CITES Parties voted to begin protecting Great White Sharks through an Appendix II listing. The debates highlight some of the background political tensions at the convention, including how countries attempt to use agreements with other international agreements to serve their own agendas.

Debates in Committee I today were very emotional. In the morning, Japan proposed that CITES should urge the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to complete and implement a revised management scheme (RMS), a necessary step before the IWC can lift the worldwide commercial whaling moratorium. Japan also proposed to move some populations of minke whales from Appendix I (no international trade if it’s for primarily commercial purposes) to Appendix II (international trade is OK so long as it’s not detrimental to the survival of the species).

Although the proposals were debated and voted on separately, the arguments both for and against were similar. Both sides of the debate argued that the best available science supported their respective sides. In addition to that argument, the countries in favor of the proposals argued that the IWC is dysfunctional and corrupt and that CITES should not follow it (i.e., consider its moratorium or follow past Resolutions calling for CITES parties to respect the moratorium). Those countries also cast the argument in terms of developing versus developed countries. More specifically, some developing countries expressed concerns over food security and that whales compete with humans for food. The countries opposed to the proposals countered that there is no scientific evidence to support that whales hurt food security. They further argued that the IWC has recently reaffirmed its commitment to complete the RMS and that some Parties to the IWC are still concerned about resistance to inspections. Finally, Parties pointed out that the proposals went against the spirit of cooperation with IWC that has been expressed in previous Resolutions.

An equally emotional debate occurred this afternoon regarding whether to list the Great White Shark on Appendix II, protecting it from international trade that would be detrimental to the survival of the species. The countries speaking for and against the proposal mirrored those of the morning whale debates, with the “con” arguments closely paralleling those of the “pro” arguments of the morning. In addition, the “con” countries argued that the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is the best organization to manage sharks.

Japan’s efforts leading up to today’s votes indicate how countries attempt to use CITES’ relationships with other organizations to further their own goals. Many treaties and agreements are created to deal with specific problems. For example, the IWC was established to help regulate international commercial whaling efforts, while the FAO was established to address food security issues, especially in developing countries. However, many treaties overlap in scope and/or objectives. For example, IWC and CITES both deal with preventing species extinction, while FAO, IWC and CITES all touch on marine species. Where treaties overlap, they often enter into agreements with one another to promote cooperation and synergy. Japan, et al argued that because FAO manages fisheries, it should manage sharks. At the same time, they argued that although IWC manages whales, CITES should not follow its lead because Japan disagrees with how IWC conducts its business.

Links

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