CITES Showdown in Zimbabwe

by Ben White

Zimbabwe - Before leaving for the CITES meeting in Harare, I wondered what the endangered animals and plants whose survival was being debated would say in my place.

As one who presumes to work for wildlife, I often feel their presence - whales, trees, lizards, turtles, bears and elephants - peering over my shoulder to see if I am holding true to their concerns. But never before have I felt the pressure of this scrutiny as much as during those 14 days in June, when the survival or destruction of millions of creatures and millions of acres of critical habitat was decided by a small group of human beings gathered in one African city.

Fighting jet-lag and pummeled by the sheer volume and complexity of issues being discussed, the global representatives of six billion humans sat down to debate whether the world's 500,000 remaining African elephants (the most optimistic tally) was too many.

The very idea of a Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) gives me the willies. Why should there be any trade at all in endangered species? Because, of course, it makes money.

CITES is where the worlds of money and wild things collide; where suppliers, traders and consumers encourage ever-increasing "use" of animal "resources," and the few environmentalists in attendance try to shore up crumbling protections. Every two-and-a-half years, dramatically contrary approaches to life on Earth come together at these meetings and slug it out. Policies are adopted. Forests stand or fall. Elephants live or are butchered for their tusks.

The Survival Debate

The world we have inherited is graced with a seemingly infinite variety of life: mammals that fly, birds of impossible color, whales that sing and trees that offer oxygen and medicines. But as our global human population pushes six billion and demands even more space and sustenance, how do we protect the most threatened plants and animals?

Some say that endangered species must "pay their own way" to justify their preservation. Some hold that all forms of life are resources and that the task is to create a way for people to use them "sustainably." Others believe that we should manage human affairs in such a way that the allowable trade in endangered species equals zero.

CITES tries to strike a balance, offering three levels of protection. Appendix I bans all international trade except for hunting trophies and live "specimens" "not [used primarily] for commercial purposes." Appendix II allows some trade within specified limits. Appendix III leaves the protection to "range states" where the endangered plant or animal is found.

Besides the 129 countries represented in CITES, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) are allowed to attend and (occasionally) speak in conference sessions. Hundreds of proposals come up for voting. Many delegates change their minds during the conference based on their conversations with NGOs. At the Harare meeting, observers representing conservation and animal organizations were far outnumbered by big game hunters, aboriginal whalers, "sustainable use" advocates and wildlife traffickers.

For two weeks, CITES gave thumbs up or down on proposal after proposal to either list, uplist or downlist dozens of species that are traded but threatened.

Every morning, NGOs working for conservation and animal-rights groups met under a new umbrella coalition, the Species Survival Network, to plan the day's strategy. Bleary-eyed and gripping coffee cups, activists from all over the world reviewed the successes and failures of the previous day and prepared for the major battles to come. AWI's Adam Roberts briefed everyone on the location of the day's pivotal debates on bears, whales, mahogany, elephants, turtles or other emergencies-of-the moment and on which delegates appeared to be good candidates for lobbying. Then everyone fanned out to buttonhole delegates on the floor, prepare statements or find breakfast.

Whales on the Auction Block

In the morning, heading back to the convention center through thick traffic, the western horizon was so black it looked like an approaching thunderstorm. It was just the morning smog.

Some of the earliest battles involved Japan's proposal to circumvent the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling and establish a system to trade in whalemeat. Whale advocates mobilized to make sure the delegates understood the enormity of this proposal. Japan requested a secret vote, violating expectations that the convention's proceedings would be "transparent." The vote failed.

Another victory followed. Three different populations of Minke whales, one species of Brydes whales, and the California Grey Whales were proposed for downlisting, which would permit their meat to be traded on the international market. Whale advocates strategized, lobbied and coaxed. We gave out ballpoint pens with pictures of whales and "Appendix I" emblazoned across the side. In the end, the whales won the vote.

Namibia proposed a seemingly insignificant change in Appendix I's phrase "primarily for commercial purposes" that would have allowed governments to sell stockpiles of endangered animal or plant parts - or "harvests" of so-called "nuisance animals" - without the sale being considered commercial. Since nuisance animals can include anything from elephants in Africa to cockatoos in Central America, many of us felt that such a change would totally defeat any slim protection currently offered by CITES. This proposal also was defeated.

As the first week wore on, the tenor of debate became more acrimonious. CITES is a battleground of ideas and shifting attitudes. Increasingly, the uplisting of any plant or animal was portrayed by smaller and poorer countries as an attempt to keep them from utilizing their "natural resources." The subject of human overpopulation was avoided even by conservation groups (in order to avoid confronting the false choice between human welfare and animal survival). The radical concept that animals are not resources but independent, intelligent and self-aware tribes to be respected and defended was barely a glimmer on the horizon.

The dissolution of the US delegation was a bitter disappointment to many. AWI's Roberts orchestrated the battle for uplisting Eurasian bears but had the rug pulled out from under him by the lack of US resolve. Similarly, proposals to increase protection for 12 species of map turtles and the alligator snapping turtle were watered down and defeated or withdrawn by the US. In all of these cases, intense domestic pressure from the state fish and wildlife agencies (who wanted protection left up to the states) weakened the US position.

The Great Elephant Showdown

Tuesday of the second week saw the Great Elephant Showdown. When the smoke finally cleared, 62 out of the 123 voting countries had made comments in the heated debate. When it appeared that individual proposals from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe might fail to reach the two-thirds margin of success, South Africa introduced an amendment that made the downlisting slightly more palatable.

The amendment proposed that ivory sales would be limited to the approximately 5 tons held by the three countries, that they would sell the ivory only to Japan and that no sales would be permitted for 18 months. In a knuckle-biting secret vote, the proposal failed by just three votes.

Those of us fighting for the ban on ivory as the best way to stop poaching, breathed an enormous sigh. I saw Israel delegate and wildlife champion Bill Clark slump in his chair in a gesture of relief and exhaustion. It was expected that the votes would be taken on the more liberal proposals of the three states and, most likely, be defeated.

But, in a surprisingly partisan ruling, Canadian committee chair David Brackett stopped the debate and ordered the formation of a working group to be led by strongly pro-"use" Norway. The working group also included 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. This "compromise" abruptly sailed right through, easily gaining two-thirds of the votes.

Jubilant parks employees jumped to their feet, dancing and hugging each other. A man stood in the upper balcony and, without a murmur of interruption from the chair, sang out Zimbabwe's long national anthem in a ringing baritone.

As the nationalistic fervor continued, the smattering of animal advocates in the hall - many of whom had worked hard for years to oppose downlisting - looked hollow, downcast, defeated. They were imagining the wave of blood that would follow in the wake of this ruling.

The concerns of the African countries still under siege from well-armed poachers had been ignored, as were the worries of activists from India and Bangladesh, who already had seen an upsurge in the killing of Indian elephants in anticipation of the possible downlisting.

The elephant defeat was bad enough, but the way it was accomplished made it especially hard to swallow. Perhaps it was naive to assume, given the money riding on the decisions, that we would see a fair fight in Harare.

Buying Votes and Selling Out Wildlife

Corruption thrived at the CITES conference. Japan bought the votes of a whole block of Caribbean countries: St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Antigua, Dominica and Trinidad-Tobago.

Taking advantage of the decline of US foreign aid to this region, Japan has responded with a liberal purse (in exchange for a little help in the international arena). Lunch time saw the US representative who funnels money from Tokyo holding court in the Harare Sheraton's Japanese restaurant, surrounded by his Caribbean aid recipients.

International trade in wildlife and drugs have become increasingly intertwined, making for very odd bedfellows. The enormously powerful Russian Mafia was said to be in attendance, interested in, among other things, the unrestricted flow of caviar. (The uplisting of sturgeon products was amended to permit a generous allowance for "personal consumption.") Proposals to restrict the trade in wild birds failed, perhaps due, in part, to the popularity of packing cocaine inside dead birds in the bottom of shipping cages.

The pervasive stench of corruption filled the atmosphere of the conference. Suspicions intensified when conference-goers discovered that the US delegation had brought in an electronics expert to sweep the convention center for eavesdropping bugs. Reportedly, he found bugs everywhere, including on phones and computers rented by the Species Survival Network. Word had it that the US delegation traveled to the US embassy whenever they wanted a secure phone line. Left unsaid was who might be bugging the place and why.

After the vote that downlisted the elephants, the committees zoomed through dozens of life-or-death proposals with little debate. Even though it was strongly supported by both the major importer (the US) and the major exporter (Bolivia), the proposal to increase protection of bigleaf mahogany was voted down, defeated by timber interests for the third CITES meeting in a row. The uplisting of sawfishes, mantella frogs, timber rattlesnakes, Kara Tau argalis (the large, wild sheep of Asia), several species of parakeets, lorikeets and cockatoos also failed. Protection was decreased on the export of leopard trophies and skins, circus animals, tree kangaroos, Nile crocodiles, collared peccary (a pig-like mammal) and the pearly mussel.

A Few, Precious Victories

In the final blitz, we did eke out a few victories. A proposal from Venezuela to establish a quota for exporting jaguars failed, as did the proposals to allow the sale of white rhino horn from South Africa and the renewed trade in hawksbill sea turtles from Cuba. In the final deadly tally of the 105 issues that the Species Survival Network concentrated on, 55 won and 41 lost, with no change on the remainder. Technically, it was a victory, but it didn't feel like one.

Flying over burnt brown land from Zimbabwe to South Africa, I reflected how "sustainable use" became the mantra of the CITES conference. If we are going to be a successful voice for the wild ones, we need to clarify what that means. Encouraging the market economy of endangered plants and animals just invites plunder - benefiting few but the plunderer.

It would be lovely to be able to ignore CITES, since, simply by attending, we are forced to speak in the resource-use language of those that profit from killing wildlife. But CITES is the place where the most precious of the world's diversity is put on the auction block, and we - like it or not - are the generation on watch.

To chose to ignore CITES would be tantamount to the abolitionists shunning the Savannah slave auctions of 150 years ago. In the battle of ideas, we need to think clearly how best to stop the commoditization of the wild. And we need to emphasize that our global choice is not animals versus people. It is greed versus community.