While the debate over reopening the ivory trade rumbled,
sometimes deafeningly, in the background, Parties to the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) waded through less high-profile agenda
items on Wednesday, including captive-breeding facilities and
the so-called "sustainable use" of CITES-listed species.
Captive Breeding
Committee I created a working group to consider a
controversial request to make it easier to register operations
that breed species listed on Appendix I for commercial
purposes. CITES has a loophole in the ban on the international
commercial trade in Appendix I species. Breeding facilities
that register with the CITES Secretariat are allowed to export
products, parts, or live animals of species listed on Appendix
I—treating them as if they were essentially listed on Appendix
II. In order to register, operations must first be approved by
two thirds of the CITES Parties. Few such facilities are
registered; most of them are for crocodilians.
This difficult approval process is necessary because a
captive breeding facility in one nation can undermine the
conservation efforts in another. When products from Appendix I
species enter the market legally, some inevitably enter the
market illegally as well—and those illegal products will be
taken from animals in the wild. This is why India objected in
1992 when China proposed to register a tiger-breeding operation
so that it could export tiger parts and products (which are
used in traditional Chinese medicine). India has a serious
tiger poaching problem and didn't want to see it escalate. Once
India objected, China withdrew its proposal.
The European Union, which has a large number of
captive-breeding operations for Appendix I species of parrots,
wants to see CITES adopt a registration procedure that requires
only the country where the captive-breeding facility is located
to approve the operation. Many Latin American countries, such
as Mexico, strongly disagree; these nations are home to wild
populations of the parrot species bred in captivity in the
European Union. They believe that putting captive-bred
specimens of these species into trade will undermine their
conservation efforts.
In Committee I, delegates also continued to develop
documents regarding the conservation of hawksbill sea turtles
and sea cucumbers. In addition, delegates discussed a document
by the United States that would, if adopted, ensure that
nationally established export quotas were scientifically based.
Japan, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, and Argentina opposed the
United States document, either in part or in whole. Committee I
formed a working group discuss the matter.
Sustainable Use
Undoubtedly still smarting from failed attempts to downlist
minke whale populations, Norway presented Committee II with a
document—a diatribe, really—complaining how difficult it is to
transfer species from Appendix I to Appendix II or to remove
species from the Appendices altogether. In proposing a way to
make such transfers easier, Norway argued that "sustainable
use" (which, in the context of CITES, means "wildlife trade")
must be supported if nations are to make progress on
development and alleviating poverty. Pro-trade countries such
as Japan, Cuba, Russia, and Antigua and Barbuda jumped in with
their support.
The delegate from Antigua and Barbuda said that CITES "was
not established to permanently lock away resources from
communities which are dependent on these resources." Norway's
plan, the delegate said, would "improve the process for
delisting of species after satisfactory recovery." The United
States, Canada, and Australia opposed the proposal. Committee
II formed a working group to consider the issue.
The Secretariat Slams
Species-Protection Laws
Continuing its tradition of supporting wildlife trade, the
CITES Secretariat presented its document regarding "economic
incentives and trade policy." The document posits, without any
supporting evidence, the theory that allowing individuals to
trade in species of wildlife will give those individuals the
monetary incentive to conserve that species in the wild. The
document goes on to attack the use of "stricter domestic
measures" such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, which does
not allow the import of every species that would be allowed for
import under CITES.
The Secretariat's document recommends against domestic laws
and regulations—the adoption of which is a right given to
Parties under the CITES treaty—that are more stringent than
CITES because they thwart trade and restrict access to markets,
and thus have a negative impact on conservation. Pro-trade
countries such as Japan and Norway supported the document.
The United States opposed the document stating, "We are very
concerned by the recommendations requiring avoiding, where
possible, stricter domestic measures. The U.S. fully supports
its own stricter domestic measures and feels they are
justifiable measures for the conservation of species in the
wild."
Brazil concurred, commenting that it appeared "we are trying
here to protect economic measures instead of protecting
animals." India and the European Union also voiced objections.
Committee II will consider a draft revision of the document,
based on the comments made.
