CITES 1997 Conference

Showdown in Zimbabwe

As one who presumes to work for wildlife and wild places, I sometimes feel their presence peering over my shoulder to see if I am holding true to their concerns. Never have I felt this scrutiny as much as during the two weeks I spent in Harare, Zimbabwe, at the tenth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). There, the survival or destruction of millions of creatures and millions of acres of critical habitat was decided, all by a relatively small group of human beings in one place. Before leaving for the meeting, I wondered what the animals and plants whose survival—and worth—was being debated would say in my place.

CITES is a system of agreements between countries that tries to strike a balance, offering three levels of protection: Appendix I bans all international trade except for hunting trophies and live animals "not to be used for primarily commercial purposes." Appendix II allows some trade in the species within specified limits. Appendix III lists species named by individual nations for protected status.

At the Harare meeting, the non-governmental organization (NGO) observers representing conservation and animal protection were far outnumbered by "sustainable use" advocates, those that traffic in wildlife, trophy hunters and whalers. Even the physical setting was daunting. A visitor to the convention hall attached to the Harare Sheraton had to pass by the frozen glare of many African animals—such as Cape Buffalo and Cheetah—their bodies stuffed and mounted, their spirit gone. Day by day, as the first week wore on, the tenor of debate became slightly more acrimonious. More than a conflict between countries, CITES is a battleground of ideas and shifting attitudes. Some say that in our crowded world endangered species must have a monetary value, must "pay their own way" in order to justify their preservation. Some hold that all forms of life are resources and that the task at hand is to create a way for people to "sustainably use" them. Others believe that we should manage human affairs in such a way that, at least, no more species are driven to extinction, and that the allowable trade in endangered species should be zero.

Advocacy groups of every persuasion held forth from their booths. The pro-whaling High North Alliance offered T-shirts that had the slogans "Intelligent People Need Intelligent Food" and "Save a Whale—For Dinner," bannered above prostrate cartoon whales.

For two weeks CITES gave thumbs up or down on proposal after proposal to either list for the first time or uplist (both giving greater-than present protection), downlist (removing some protection), or delist (remove from the Appendices completely) for dozens of species that are traded but threatened. One measure decided at the conference was a proposal by Japan to circumvent the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling, and establish a system to trade in whalemeat. A secret vote was requested by Japan, and the resolution was rejected.

A seemingly insignificant change in wording was pro-posed by Namibia to alter the definition of the words "for primarily commercial purposes" in the protection offered by Appendix I. The change would have allowed governments to sell off any stockpiles of endangered animal or plant parts or "harvests" of so-called "nuisance animals" without the sale being considered "for primarily commercial purposes." Nuisance animals could include anything from elephants in Africa to macaws in Central America; the proposal was withdrawn. Our greatest early victories at CITES involved whales. Three different populations of minke whales, one of Brydes (pronounced brutus) whales, and the US population of California grey whales were proposed to be downlisted so that their meat could be internationally traded. Whale advocates lobbied and coaxed. In the end the whales won the vote. Even though the Norwegian proposal to downlist the minke whales in their neck of the woods received a majority, it fell well short of the 2/3 majority required to downlist.

Lending urgency to the proceedings were the reports of new pirate whaling in the North Atlantic, perhaps in anticipation of the relaxation of rules on the selling of whalemeat. At least six yachts have recently reported finding dead or dying sperm whales with radar marker buoys attached waiting to be picked up by some unknown whaler. The Portuguese have responded by sending a patrol vessel out from the Azores to try to find the outlaw.

Bears did not fare well at CITES. The proposals by Finland, Bulgaria and Jordan to increase protection for all brown bears outside North America were soundly defeated, despite Jordan's unwavering defense. Fierce opposition by brown bear range states including the Russian Federation, Romania, and the Czech Republic made it difficult for many countries to support the species' uplisting.

The resolution ultimately passed by the Parties on Conservation of and Trade in Bears was hollow. Although it calls on Parties to improve national legislation and enforcement "to demonstrably reduce the illegal trade in bear parts," it does not call for a voluntary suspension of the bear parts trade, a measure that AWI has long supported. In fact, the United States announced just prior to the Conference that it would support such a moratorium if recommended by other Parties, but no such suggestion was proffered. China, seemingly supportive leading up to the Conference, sold out the bears when it counted most. Even a modest amendment proposed by India to attempt to "eliminate" the illegal bear parts trade—rather than simply reduce it—was defeated as an unrealistic goal.

Lastly, a resolution was adopted concerning the use of endangered species in traditional Asian medicines. Included is an unacceptable recommendation that Parties "consider, where appropriate and with sufficient safeguards, the application of artificial propagation and, in certain circumstances, captive breeding, in meeting the needs of traditional medicine." To its credit, the United States proposed to amend the line to consider the "impact" rather than "application" of captive breeding facilities, which, of course, will include the deplorable Chinese bear farms. China spoke out against the simple but beneficial language change and the document was approved without the US amendment.

The proposals by the US to increase protection for 12 species of map turtles and the alligator snapping turtle were watered down and defeated or withdrawn. The reason given for the retreat of the US team was intense pressure from the state fish and wildlife agencies—under the banner of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies—to leave protection up to the states.

Tuesday of the second week saw the Great Elephant Showdown. When the smoke finally cleared, 62 out of the 123 countries eligible to vote had made comments in the heated debate. When it appeared that the individual proposals from Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe might fail to reach the magical 2/3 margin of success, South Africa introduced an amendment that made the downlisting slightly more palatable to some. The amendment was essentially window dressing, saying that the sale of ivory would be limited to a one shot deal: the three countries would only sell the almost 50 tons of ivory they now hold between them to one buyer (Japan) and that there would be no sales for eighteen months. Being slightly more restrictive, the South African plan was seen as having the best chance to pass. In a knuckle-biting secret vote, the amendment failed by just three votes to gain the 2/3. Those of us fighting for keeping the ban on ivory in order to stop poaching breathed an enormous sigh. NGO observers were relegated to a balcony, and looking down on the floor, I saw Israeli delegate and wildlife champion Bill Clark slump in his chair almost to the floor in a gesture of relief and exhaustion. It was expected that, although late in the day, the votes would be taken on the more liberal downlisting proposals of the three states and, most likely, they would be defeated— one, two, three. But it was not to be. In a blatantly partisan ruling by David Brackett, Canadian chair of Committee I, the debate was stopped. Instead of voting on the proposals once and for all, he ordered the formation of a working group under (strongly pro-use) Norway, with the participation of the three African states wanting downlisting along with Japan and the European Union. The next day this working group produced a "consensus" document almost identical to the failed South African amendment. In a startlingly abrupt manner, this "compromise" then sailed right through, easily gaining 2/3 of the votes. Then the individual proposals were approved—Botswana, Namibia, and finally, Zimbabwe. When the Zimbabwe elephant downlisting cleared, jubilation reigned. Parks employees danced and hugged each other.

Rows of scrubbed schoolchildren in British style uniforms and straw hats cheered and applauded. A man stood up in the upper balcony, and—without a murmur of interruption from the chair—sang out the long national anthem in a ringing baritone.

The concerns of the countries of Africa still under siege from well armed poachers had been ignored, as well as those from India and Bangladesh that had already seen an upsurge in the killing of Indian elephants just in anticipation of the possible downlisting. In eighteen months the trade of ivory, although supposedly severely restricted, will resume. Clearly, when it appeared the downlisting would be defeated, the committee chair halted the process, shifted gears, and came up with the desired result. Perhaps it was naïve for me to assume, given the money riding on the decisions, that we would see a fair fight in Harare.

Each morning, the local newspaper, The Herald, was slipped under each hotel room door, and each morning the headline greeted delegates with pro-ivory trade propaganda. Each time the television was turned on there were pro-ivory news interviews and half-hour CAMPFIRE infomercials. Animal welfare and conservation NGOs got our share of press attention, too, but the publicity was for the most part antagonistic to the West and considerably favorable toward the elephant downlisting. The dual international trades in wildlife and drugs have become increasingly intertwined, bringing odd bedfellows into the conference. The enormously powerful Russian mafia was said to be in attendance, interested, among other things, in the unrestricted flow of caviar (the uplisting of sturgeon products was amended to permit a generous allowance for "personal consumption"). Many of the proposals to restrict the huge trade in wild birds failed, perhaps partly due to the popularity of packing cocaine inside already dead birds in the bottom of the shipping cages. One dedicated activist from the Caribbean confided to me that in the last year she has had both her house and her sailboat destroyed by drug runners angry at her effectiveness in exposing the drug/wildlife trade link.

After the Wednesday vote downlisting the elephants the committees zoomed through dozens of life-or-death proposals with little debate, as if a log jam had been broken and permission to elbow aside any nagging concerns about endangered species had been found.

Even though it was strongly supported by both the major importer (US) and the major exporter (Bolivia), the proposal to increase protection of bigleaf mahogany was voted down, defeated by timber interests for the third time in a row. Also defeated were the uplisting of sawfishes, mantella frogs, timber rattlesnakes, Kara Tau argalis, several species of parakeets, lorikeets, and cockatoos, and the cloth from wild vicunas. Protection was decreased on the export of leopard trophies and skins, tree kangaroos, Nile crocodiles, collared peccary, and the pearly mussel.

In the last blitz, we did eke out a few victories. A proposal from Venezuela to establish a quota for exporting Jaguars failed, and the proposals to allow the sale of white rhino horn from South Africa, and the renewed trade in hawksbill (sea) turtles from Cuba failed. "Sustainable use" proponents argue that if we bunny-hugging richer countries want wild elephants, zebras and giraffes in our world then we should pay for the privilege. They have a point. However, that is already happening with the thousands of tourists that pack the buses to come to see the exotic fauna. The concept that animals can best be "sustainably used" by killing them and trading in their body parts is both wildly optimistic and contrary to history. The "sustainable" lethal use of any wildlife has never been our strong suit. The current global collapse of fisheries, the whaling industry, the ancient decimation of beavers and birds for hats are all examples of market economies that became engines of annihilation. Once identified as a re-source, the world's diversity becomes a coin that can be spent, saved, or converted into gold.

Nonetheless, "sustainable use" became the mantra of the CITES conference. If we are going to be successful being the voice of animals it would appear that we need to clarify what that means: a way for local people to make money from the very existence of wild animals—living where they live—wild and free. Encouraging the market economy of endangered animals and plants just invites plunder, with the local economies no better for the loss. We need to think clearly how best to stop the commoditization of the wild. And we need to say over and over that our global choice is not animals versus people but greed versus community.

Longtime activist Ben White (see "Nightwork in Japan," AWI Quarterly, Spring 1993) has joined AWI's staff as Wildlife Investigator. His specialty is marine mammals.

Leakey, Proud to Be a "Bunny Hugger"

The famous paleontologist and (retired) Kenyan Wildlife Service head Richard Leakey spoke at the Species Survival Network's reception in Harare, June 12. Starting out by explaining how he always makes a point of leaving Zimbabwe within 18 hours of any controversial speech he makes (and that he was leaving first thing in the morning) he went on to deliver an impassioned plea to not downlist elephants. "I am entirely opposed to any resumption of any international trade in ivory," he said. "The practice of the trade under present circumstances in both producer and consumer countries is untenable."

He appealed to the hall packed with delegates and observers to remember that the whole reason for CITES is to protect endangered species, not necessarily economic interests: "The money to be made from trading ivory may be substantial for individuals but is a pittance for governments. Governments are supposedly there to serve the people and I believe that, if these governments wanted to well serve their people, they will stand firm and ensure that the ivory trade remains banned indefinitely."

Finally, he defiantly announced that he for one was not afraid to be called a "bunny hugger." Whipping a pink toy plush bunny out of his back pocket he cradled it into his burly red cheek and patted it sweetly on the back. "I do not feel guilty or uncomfortable," he said, "when I am accused of being 'on the side of wildlife': I care and so do millions of other people in every part of the world. We must be heard, we must stand tall and remember that a species is lost for all time."

AWI Quarterly, Spring/Summer 1997, Volume 46, numbers 2 & 3