IELP Goes to Thailand to Protect Endangered Species

October 3, 2004

Bangkok, Thailand

(Brenda) Now that jet lag is subsiding, we are getting in the swing of things here in Bangkok. The first couple of days have been largely ceremonial, interspersed with strategic meetings with other non-governmental organizations. Some of the issues we’re been working through in preparation of their appearing on committee agendas, including compliance and enforcement of CITES, elephant proposals, and a decision to reaffirm CITES parties’ commitment to supporting the efforts of the regional fishery management organization responsible for Patagonia toothfish.

Committee I, which is discussing animals and plants proposals, discussed whether to double leopard hunting trophy quotas for Namibia and South Africa. Some countries raised questions about the scientific integrity of the decision, but the majority of parties supported the proposal. The Committee also approved proposals by Namibia and South Africa to allow the export of 5 hunting trophies of Black Rhinoceros. This proposal was more contentious because Black Rhinoceroses are still listed as “critically endangered.” IELP was particularly interested in the rhinoceros proposal as we had suggested restrictive verbiage to the resolution to be more protective. IELP did not take a position on whether to approve the proposals, but we were pleased to see that the Parties added the restrictions we wanted to the resolutions. All four proposals must still be put to a CITES-wide vote in Plenary, later in the week.

(Debby) Quite frankly, Committee II is the less sexy of the 2 Committee, and yet it has a subtleness about it that is attractive in its own right. It is where the more technical issues are discussed, such as the budget and the relationship of CITES to other multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The morning discussion on budget resulted in the formation of a Working Group – a number of Party delegates and a few NGO representatives meet during the lunch hours to hammer out language and work out controversial and complicated issues. They will bring their finished product back to Committee II, which will vote then. In the afternoon, Committee II examined Australia’s proposal to officially review the Scientific Committees (Animals and Plants) and their mandate and structure. The Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees were “surprised” and “shocked” by this, taking it as an attack upon the A&P Committees - an attempt to reduce its funding and perhaps consolidate the two groups. Many Parties spoke up in defense of the Scientific Committees and expressed gratitude for their hard work. Australia insisted that it was not attempting sabotage, but was simply concerned with good governance. Ultimately, a Working Group was formed to look at the necessity for review and its terms of reference. This Working Group will also examine the Scientific Committees’ proposal to require certain assurances that regional representatives will have sufficient national support to fulfill their duties.

(Erica) While Committees I and II are where the Parties convene to discuss their proposals, the work of NGOs happens behind the scenes and can be incredibly intense. IELP is a member of an international network of environmental groups called the Species Survival Network (SSN). SSN meets every morning prior to the Committee meetings to discuss its efforts, including various topic-specific working groups and the lobbying that is so vital to the work of NGOs at CITES.

The lobbying is intense – it involves cell phones, text messaging, hand outs, and even a degree of espionage. Needless to say, Brenda, Debby, and I have been hesitant to participate in the lobbying efforts, but we have been hard at work with “working groups.” I have been especially involved in an enforcement group as the issue of enforcement is coming up soon in Committee. We have drafted amendments to a Kenya proposal to amend a Resolution of the Parties dealing with enforcement. The document aims to provide enforcement officials – those who are actually on the group and can stop the illegal killing of protected species – with better training and more authority. Further, the document calls for regional enforcement task forces and National Action Plans. Let’s cross our fingers because the effectiveness of CITES depends on enforcement of domestic wildlife laws.

Links

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