Has CITES had its day?

Mark Jones, BBC Green Room 6 Apr 10;

Governments, conservationists and pro-trade groups have been trying to make what capital they can from their respective "victories" at last month's meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). But, asks Mark Jones, is the 37-year-old convention successfully doing the job it was established to do?

CITES is mandated to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants, or products derived from them, does not threaten their survival.

An impressive-sounding 175 parties (member countries) are committed to implementing various protection measures for some 5,000 species of animal and 28,000 plants.

Yet at times on the floor of last month's conference in Doha, Qatar, one had the impression that the arguments and outcomes had more to do with protecting commercial interests than protecting wildlife.

The process of decision making has become intensely political. Parties choose to use scientific evidence to support their positions when it suits them, and refute the validity of the science when it doesn't.

Parties also use procedural technicalities to their political advantage. At times, during a heated debate, the conference resembles the bearpit of a national parliament.

Countries with vested interests in particular issues often send large delegations and high-ranking politicians and officials in order to persuade other parties to side with them on crucial votes.

Faced with proposals to protect beleaguered stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna and several species of shark, Japan sent around 50 delegates to coerce island states and developing nations into supporting their opposition.

It used claims of cultural bias, veiled threats, trade incentives and aid packages. Serving sushi derived from Atlantic bluefin tuna at a lavish reception for delegates the night before the vote was a particularly cynical move.

The Zambian delegation rolled out Chieftainess Chiawa, head of a prominent indigenous group, to play the "poverty card" in support of their efforts to secure permission from the conference to downlist their elephant population and sell off their stockpiled ivory; her pleas not to let her people starve when considering the fate of Zambia's valuable ivory stocks were impassioned, if somewhat lacking in logic.



The European Union, whose 27 votes are a powerful force, votes as a bloc despite wide differences of opinion between EU member states on some issues.

Surely if a party firmly believes that science and evidence supports a particular view, it should be obliged to vote accordingly, and not be forced to vote differently by political arrangement?

The UK broke ranks by voting in favour of Atlantic bluefin tuna protection, incurring the wrath (and no doubt further sanctions down the line) of its EU partners.

These and other factors had a major bearing on the voting on a number of important proposals.

Attempts to gain CITES listings for marine species threatened with extinction because of overfishing, including bluefin tuna and hammerhead sharks, failed to gain the necessary support, in spite of UN Food and Agriculture Organization endorsement.

As a consequence, these species - like so many other overfished marine stocks - remain at the mercy of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), the very organisations that have presided over their near demise.

Poor arguments

Delegates in favour of maintaining trade in certain threatened species often claim that limiting trade will harm the economies of poor communities, or reduce the opportunity for people to obtain essential resources.

However, most shark fishing is carried out in international waters by large commercial vessels to serve the tastes of the growing middle classes in East Asia for shark fin soup, and 80% of Atlantic bluefin tuna ends up as sushi in Japanese restaurants.

Red and pink corals are disappearing fast in order to supply nothing more essential than markets for jewellery and trinkets.

Yet they all failed to gain protection.

In any event, there is nothing that will devastate a poor coastal community more than the complete collapse of a stock of fish, removing a potential resource for the generations to come.

Satanic salvation

Some of the decisions and resolutions adopted by the conference, though, will have important conservation benefits.



Several species of Madagascan plants, Latin American amphibians, and reptiles have received CITES listings restricting international trade.

The unsung Satanic beetle from Bolivia gained an Appendix 2 listing to protect it from unscrupulous collectors.

Protection for many other species has been strengthened, including antelopes, rhinos, tigers, snakes and freshwater turtles; and the conference eventually rejected proposals from Tanzania and Zambia to be allowed to sell off their elephant ivory stockpiles.

Demand led

CITES seems to be most successful when dealing with species for which international trade poses a significant threat but where financial or economic considerations are limited.

It gets into difficulty when it tries to deal with species of high commercial value.

The international trade value of timber and fish products dwarfs that of all other species put together. Yet despite demand for many tree and fish species driving them towards extinction in the wild, the vast majority of attempts to introduce or strengthen protection for them failed at this conference.

As we go forward, it is vital that the conference exercises its mandate to regulate trade in these species.

Exploitation of, and trade in, wildlife and wildlife products is driven by demand.

In an ideal world, we would control trade in endangered species by reducing the demand, by educating people in consumer states.

However, in the face of criticism concerning "interference with national sovereign rights", "cultural traditions" and "ignorance of poverty", such efforts are unlikely to succeed - certainly not in time to save many of the species this conference discussed.

So, while continuing with demand reduction efforts, the focus is on controlling the supply through national and international regulation, effective enforcement and severe penalties for offenders who try to obtain, ship or trade in wildlife products illegally.

The growing involvement of sophisticated, well-funded and increasingly armed criminal organisations in the illegal wildlife trade was recognised at the conference, along with the need for enforcement efforts to match this level of sophistication if it is to be effective.

Wildlife crime, long seen as "soft", is now up there with the trade in drugs, weapons and people in terms of its significance and the way it operates.

Only game in town?

So is CITES still an effective force for species conservation?

There is a feeling among many conservationists that Doha may have been our last chance to give real, meaningful protection for some species - and that we missed it.

However, for all its faults, CITES is the one international convention specifically targeted at controlling trade in endangered species, so it is the international legal framework with which we have to work.

The conference operates on a budget of around $6m - not much more than the value of some of the yachts moored in Doha's bay outside the conference centre.

Perhaps what CITES needs is a bigger budget, sharper teeth, and some way of taking some of the politics and vested interests out of its proceedings.

The protection of many species affected by trade requires international cooperation and protection, because they are captured in one country, transported through others, and consumed in others still.

If CITES won't provide this international protection, who will?

Mark Jones is programmes and fundraising director of Care for the Wild International, a UK-based conservation charity

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website