• Home
  • Our story
  • Our people
  • Myth busters
  • Act now
  • Visit us
  • Blog
Campaign Against Canned Hunting (CACH)

CITES - the apologists fight back

7/26/2018

8 Comments

 
Picture
                                   
My blog calling for the abolition of CITES (http://www.cannedlion.org/blog/several-good-reasons-to-abolish-cites)  has predictably provoked a furious response from some CITES apologists. This one is typical:
This is not a problem of the concept of CITES but rather a problem with the enforcement of CITES by the signatories of the treaty. As a conservation biologist I'm telling you that to say CITES should be thrown out is unbelievably irresponsible. If you have no CITES (or similar international checks on import/export of wildlife products) things WILL be catastrophically worse for many many endangered species and there will be no legal recourse. You need to focus on the corruption within the SA government.

Okay, so apart from the fact that I’m not a conservation biologist and therefore how dare I have an independent opinion on CITES, let’s take this little billet douce apart.

First can you really say with a straight face that there’s nothing wrong with the concept of CITES?
CITES is a trade organisation, and CITES officials never miss an opportunity to defend their irrelevance by pointing out that they are a trade body and not a conservation organisation.

So am I the only person in the conservation universe that finds it bizarre and ludicrous that national  conservation policies all around the world are being determined not by a global conservation body but by a trade organisation?

Wouldn’t it be better if we abolished the trade organisation and replaced it with a supranational nature protection organisation? Wouldn’t that be more logical? And effective?

I could write a book on all the adverse impacts of measuring conservation through the narrow and oblique lens of trade? Trade regards nature as a commodity. All of nature is regarded as a mere resource to be harvested. Adopting an insane policy of sustainable use is intended to regulate trade flows ie don’t trade too much in the species or there won’t be any left to trade next year.

Second, looking at conservation through the narrow prism of a specialist academic field such as biology restricts your ability to see the bigger picture. To see the bigger picture and to produce policies with a depth of vision and a broad sweep of purpose requires a generalist - not a specialist.

For example, they don’t teach you about the problems of scale in biology. You would not know that an increase in scale of an organisation causes an increase in risk and inefficiency which is not linear, but exponential. Because of this CITES was doomed to fail at the outset.

At a plenary session of CITES, your lion conservationist will find himself sitting next to a Japanese piano maker whose concern has nothing to do with Lions and everything to do with availability of hardwoods. And there are, what, 5000 other people all wanting to be heard above the clamour?  It is impossible.

The result is that decision-making moves into the wings in the form of horse trading ie “I’ll vote for that if you will vote for this.” Horse trading is certainly the essence of trading but it has f*ck- all to do with conservation. So lion conservation is traded away.

Third, you believe that without CITES legal recourse ‘things’ would be catastrophically worse. I beg to differ. Wildlife traffickers run rings around the CITES bureaucracy. By its mere existence CITES is counter-productive, because conservationists tend to leave it to CITES to make policy decisions for them, instead of taking effective, independent and proactive measures to counter known threats.

CITES has become a substitute for true conservation; a false God worshipped by specialists and other conventional thinkers.

I appreciate that I’m a lone voice crying in the wilderness and that the conservation herd is marching to the CITES tune, but that doesn’t mean that I’m wrong.
20 years ago I was campaigning for the SA government to ban lion farming because it had nothing to do with conservation; it institutionalised routine cruelty to helpless animals, and it would eventually adversely impact wild lion populations. At the time I was regarded by SA conservationists as a fringe extremist. Now however, the whole conservation herd is singing from that hymn sheet.

I have little doubt that what starts off with free thinking by independent generalists will eventually become the prevailing paradigm, and then CITES will be toppled and replaced by a proper supranational conservation organisation.
​
We do not need a trade protection body; we need a Nature protection organisation.
 

8 Comments
Nick
7/26/2018 05:33:57 am

I agree completely with your blog post so this question isn’t being posed antagonistically! Has any organization or group of organizations ever proposed an alternative body to replace CITES with and how it would function? The UN are never going to do it and the signatory Parties are never going to do it so the only alternative is interested parties within conservation creating and proposing alternative legislation and how the transition could take place.

Once there’s an alternative on the table it becomes much easier to argue for change.

Reply
Chris Mercer
7/26/2018 06:07:58 am

Good point Nick. This apposite comment was sent to me by the incomparable Karl Ammann:
Good for you. The other day I discussed a similar issues at a workshop in Durban and made the point that maybe one way to get away from this level of commodification and commercialization would be for the UN to expand the World Heritage Sites to include the world Heritage Species (basically all CITES one and what the public concludes should be CITES 1) that there should be sponsorship coming with this status going to the countries concerned to conserve the species. Funds to withdrawn if it does not happen – as with the World Heritage Sites. This might be the fastest and easiest way to put pressure on CITES and potentially get it replaced.

Furthermore the founding fathers of CITES built in a range of enforcement tools, like article 8 of the convention or the secretariat recommending trade suspension, the infraction reports were introduced later.

As it stands the secretariat shies away from pushing for any kind of enforcement. The former Chief Enforcement Officer has now been downgraded to Enforcement Consultant. The former SC announced that his target was cooperation without any kind of confrontation since everybody had the same goal and target. Except nowadays there not only piano manufacturer sitting in CITES meetings, you have the MA’s of a range of party who probably derive more than half their total income from criminal and corrupt acts associated with the CITES permitting system and they were put in that spot precisely to cash in on all the loop holes and the lack of enforcement. You have heads of ‘Wild Life Trading Associations’ (Congo) with some well-known wildlife traffickers officially attending as delegates, the same for some logging company reps. Besides horse trading vote buying is now the norm and at the BKK COP there was a 2 day debate when the US proposed that a majority vote would need to be introduced for secret ballots instead of 10 parties proposing one. This proposal was defeated, selling votes without anybody back home knowing about it was more important.

All these extensive and costly conversations about conservation are dominated by parties which all have skeletons in the closet have known each other for decades, had many a drink together and have learnt how to manipulate the system.

Cheers

Karl

Reply
lasne julie link
8/16/2018 06:18:04 am

I fully share your opinion and views about CITES Chris who are more Wall Street traders on life than anything linked to conservation.
Perhaps, beside UN, UNESCO could be an interesting international and ethical partner in this objective to put pressure on CITES, as many forest or pieces of land in many countries are classified "UNESCO SITE", protected and rehabilitated by them ?

I get to the same conclusion as you about scientists, despite -among my degrees - I have a MSc in behavioral biology specialized in conservation, it is true that most of scientists preach only for their own chapel / business, more motivated by their papers and fame for many than by animal welfare or real conservation purpose and most are unable to think out of the box. It is probably because I am also graduated from a business school that I can think from a different perspective being used to analyze all sides ...But as most of the people with a common sens looking for solutions!

You are right we need a global view, a global overview to be able to react to avoid animal genocide as an irreversible tragedy in our biodiversity world heritage and to find solutions and the key points to make things change.

Steve Wiggins
7/26/2018 06:45:35 am

Chris,

You are certainly not alone! Agree 100% that CITES is about maintaining trade, not conservation per se. (and is a poorly policed shadow of its former self anyway, with CITES Management Authority officials in country open to 'manipulation' rather than control via a central Geneva based over-sight as in the distant past).

Also agree with the concept of 'World Heritage Species' (WHS) to ensure conservation, not the failed 'sustainable utilisation' concepts dominating the landscape. With overseas development funding, the WHS concept could create a safe haven for targeted wildlife/habitat, developing local jobs and benefitting eco-tourism revenues etc....Time for those with any altruistic/conservation intent to take off the blinkers, see CITES for the overwhelming failure that it is - saying it's the 'best bad option' and it must not be challenged is admitting defeat and accepting the inevitable loss of the targeted/exploited species CITES endorses and maintains such poor over-sight of with its 'trade' intent always prominent.

Reply
Barbara Moritsch
7/26/2018 07:13:04 am

You are most certainly not alone. I've been advocating a new body--CIPES--with a global mandate of protection. Time to rally like-minded people?

Reply
Caroline Mason
7/26/2018 07:42:09 am

Hi Chris, excellent pieces on CITES - thank you. What is your opinion of the current 'sustainable use' conservation model all universities teach? Should we not call for another model of conservation - one that puts wildlife at it's heart, not the killing.

Reply
Chris
7/26/2018 10:26:10 pm

Oh absolutely Caroline. I've been complaining about sustainable use for years. You'll find blog posts on this issue if you search the blog archives - just type 'sustainable use' in the search box.

Reply
Sean Whyte
7/29/2018 03:56:11 am

I agree with your comments on CITES. It is toothless and gutless. Many (not all) people who like CITES will be those who enjoy attending its lavish conferences all over the world. CITES also provides a lot of work for scientists whose papers are often submitted. Member countries send representatives who very often have no interest in wildlife.....their attendance and votes being paid for by countries like China. China buys votes this way for another wildlife trade association; the IWC. Try and find one negative independent news report on the CITES news web site concerning China. CITES do not permit reports that might embarrass China. China has CITES by the balls.

Reply



Leave a Reply.


    Newsletter

    Archives

    August 2022
    January 2022
    July 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    May 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Animal advocacy courses are offered here:

    Subscribe to our newsletter:

Submit
PUBLIC BENEFIT NUMBER: PB0930030402        |        REG. NUMBER: 2006/036885/08   
   CACH:  P.O. BOX 54 LADISMITH 6655 SOUTH AFRICA     |     MOBILE/CELL/WHATSAPP:  +27 (0) 82 9675808
.