Sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES CoP16)
3-14 March 2013 | Bangkok, Thailand
http://www.iisd.ca/cites/cop16/
The sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP16) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) convened in Bangkok, Thailand from 3-14 March 2013. Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra officially opened the meeting and highlighted Thailand's commitment to the Convention and to enhancing cooperation in conservation and combating illegal trade. More than 2000 participants from 170 countries, including more than 200 non-governmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations, attended.
CoP16 adopted 55 new listing proposals, including on sharks, manta rays, turtles and timber. Nine proposals were rejected (caspian snowcock, tibetan snowcock, saltwater crocodile, siamese crocodile, South American freshwater stingray, Rosette river stingray, blood pheasant and two species of freshwater turtles). Three proposals were withdrawn: Southern white rhino and two African elephants. Three were not considered: Indochinese box turtle; Ryukyu black-breasted leaf turtle; and Annam leaf turtle. The CoP also adopted strong enforcement measures to address wildlife crime.
CoP16 was marked by a general effort towards consensus. Many delegates commented at the end that they were "very happy" with the outcomes, with some remarking that CoP16 had been the most successful CoP in 40 years, particularly for marine species.
The next CoP will be held in South Africa in 2016.
The Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
at http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2183e.pdf and in HTML format at
http://www.iisd.ca/vol21/enb2183e.html
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF COP16
(EXCERPT TAKEN FROM THE ENB SUMMARY ISSUE)
"This will be a difficult two weeks," remarked one delegate, as CITES CoP16 commemorated its 40th anniversary and CoP16 got underway by tackling the contentious question of the use of secret ballots for voting. The divided positions on the issue—exemplified by divergent views on the number of parties needed to support even initiating the discussions—led to two "extraordinary" plenaries in the early days of the meeting to address the matter. Yet the question of transparency was only one of the challenging issues addressed by the CoP. Numerous drafting and working groups convened throughout the two weeks to resolve divergent views on a number of ongoing debates, most notably on budget, including whether and how to approach the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to serve as a financial mechanism for CITES, and conflicts of interest in the scientific committees. For some of these matters, along with several of the proposed species listings on the CITES Appendices, no consensus was achieved, and parties resorted to voting to reach final decisions.
Regardless of their positions on each specific debate, wide agreement was expressed inside and outside of the negotiating rooms on the need for action against illegal trade, increasingly referred to as a crime. This widespread understanding of the severity of wildlife trafficking was underscored by several events that took place in parallel with CoP negotiations. These included a roundtable of ministers and high-ranking officers convened at the beginning of the CoP, followed by meetings of wildlife enforcement networks and a symposium on wildlife crime that brought together justices and attorneys general. Each gathering underscored that illegal trade in wildlife is a growing threat that can only be addressed with concerted actions, such as through the recently established International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC).
This brief analysis will explore the legacy and future of CITES through a closer look at transparency (and voting), illegal trade (with a focus on rhinos, elephants and Asian big cats) and the ongoing challenge of balancing economic, environmental and social considerations, including through developing and strengthening cooperation across other organizations and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs).
A SEE-THROUGH CONVENTION? TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A series of votes on the Rules of Procedure on the use of secret ballots, including votes on whether and how to even address the issue, led to confusion and contestation, revealing deep divides among parties and regions on the way the CoP takes decisions. While few parties spoke openly about fears of bribery, discussions in the corridors provided more candid commentary. Some lamented that powerful donor nations exert undue influence on small, developing countries, particularly African and small island developing states, many of whom depend on bilateral funding for areas of work beyond CITES. One developing country delegate alluded to these pressures, noting that negotiations happened more in hallways and communiqués to home governments than in the official meeting rooms.
A key divide among parties was whether these secret ballots were "procedural" or "substantive" issues, and the majority of parties, as indicated by the vote outcome, viewed them as the latter. For many, this decision highlighted the significance of the matter, but did not resolve the question of whether secret ballots increased freedom for countries by reducing their susceptibility to political pressures from other states or lobbyists, or whether it masked such political pressures and removed delegates' accountability to home governments and citizens.
Following the first secret ballot, the US announced it had a domestic mandate to announce its position publicly on every vote taken in secret. In Committee I's work on proposals to amend the appendices, a growing number of parties took similar action, announcing their vote for the official record. Many pointed to transparency as the motivation for these announcements, and, in the corridors, some delegates suggested that if enough parties were to take this approach, it would effectively undermine the decision on secrecy—although, of course, this depends on parties being truthful when divulging their votes.
For some participants, however, the issue of transparency was not easily reconciled with their view that secret ballots didn't mask bribery (as some feared), but instead relieved small developing parties from the pressures of regional bloc and donor positions. In extraordinary plenary debates, several parties pointed to the role of secret ballots in democracies, which allows voters freedom from coercion. Others, though, stressed the difference between individual voters and sovereign states in international negotiations, viewing the need for public accountability as stronger than fears of political pressure from other states.
While these debates dominated the agenda in the early days of the CoP, once decided upon, parties seemed willing to move on and work constructively on other agenda items. Among these, in the days following the extraordinary plenary sessions, CoP16 revised and adopted several decisions on the budget, enforcement measures to address wildlife crime and the Strategic Vision, along with appendices amendments for a number of species including sharks, manta rays, turtles, rosewood and ebony.
BEYOND THE RULE OF LAW? CITES' ROLE IN ADDRESSING ILLEGAL TRADE
CITES CoP16 convened in the context of often-cited findings that illegal trade in wildlife is now the fourth largest illegal global trade, behind only narcotics, counterfeiting and human trafficking. Sobering statistics on species declines resulting from this illegal trade reminded delegates of the urgency of their decisions.
The impacts of legal domestic trade on international legal and illegal markets, and of farming and ranching operations on wild populations, were hotly contested. Parties debated how to address international trade bans in the context of legal domestic trade, and, conversely, how to enforce and implement domestic trade bans when international markets proliferate. Some parties promoted the role of legal trade in advancing the conservation of highly-vulnerable species by providing local communities with economic incentives for sustainable management. Several debates on different species illustrated these tensions.
Discussions on tigers raised questions as to whether legal domestic trade in some tiger parts and products, as some parties claim exists in China from captive-bred populations, can continue without compromising international trade bans and hastening the decline of wild populations. In a similar vein, participants highlighted concerns about Canadian permits for polar bears (currently a legal international trade) ending up in the hands of poachers, thus allowing traders to circumvent the Russian Federation's ban on polar bear hunting through these illegal markets. Some expressed fears that restricting trade in porbeagle sharks would increase the mis- and non-reporting of bycatch by fishing vessels, thereby negatively affecting the available data for setting catch limits and quotas. Others pointed to successful experiences in South Africa with captive-breeding rhino operations as a way to support community livelihoods and reduce poaching.
The rise in illegal elephant killings across African range states in recent years, especially the last few months, meant discussions were framed by shared concerns about the need to stop illegal trade in ivory and other wildlife products. In the lead-up to the CoP, Tanzania withdrew its proposal to downlist its population of Loxodonta africana (African elephant), in what many saw as a response to the increase in illegal killings. Several lauded Tanzania's "constructive" efforts towards discussions. What few parties agreed on, however, were the mechanisms required to shut down illegal trade. As a result, CoP16 did not resolve the long-standing debate on elephants concerning one-off ivory sales, with participants continuing to disagree strongly on the impact and wisdom of such sales as a strategy to protect elephants. Proponents laud one-off sales as a way of funding conservation efforts and fulfilling demand through controlled means, while opponents see these as stimulating demand and increasing incentives for poaching and black markets. Programmes to assess the impact of these sales, such as the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) and Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS), found no clear connection between the sales and illegal markets, but several delegates pointed to the limited number of one-off sales as providing insufficient evidence for such a conclusion. Parties remained split on whether to even engage in debates on a CITES decision-making mechanism (DMM) to standardize decisions on whether and when to allow one-off sales, with some opposing any move towards allowing such sales.
With the withdrawal of downlisting proposals on elephants and rhinos, and the postponement of agreement to CoP17 on the outcome of a DMM, the results of this CoP left many debates unresolved. In light of ongoing deep divergences, some delegates anticipated challenging intersessional work, with these tensions setting the tone for its next meeting in South Africa.
THE FUTURE OF CITES? LOOKING BACK TO LOOK FORWARD
On its 40th anniversary, CITES showed no signs of fatigue as a convention at the heart of the challenges of balancing conservation with international trade, and species protection with livelihoods. High-value species have comprised the core of CITES' work during its first forty years. Outcomes on ivory, mahogany and sturgeon reflect the capacity of parties to take decisions that have significant economic implications, although these outcomes usually follow substantial debate. The decisions at CoP16 signal the continued willingness of CITES parties to address difficult topics and species.
The last few CoPs have reflected a swath of changes in the views of parties on the role of CITES. Seasoned delegates recalled acrimonious debates over timber only a few CoPs ago, and pointed to the inclusion of many economically-valuable timber species at this CoP as reinforcing consensus that CITES has a role in regulating this trade. Some pointed to a similar "turning of the tide" on economically-valuable marine species, shown by the CoP16 listings of oceanic whitetip, hammerhead and porbeagle sharks, as well as manta rays. One participant hailed the final plenary of CoP16 "as the most significant day for the oceans in the 40-year history of CITES."
The increasing scope of the Convention has resulted in a critical debate over its relationship to other international organizations and agreements. For some, the marine listings were seen as more appropriately managed by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), but others rebutted that RFMOs had done little for improving the conservation status of the shark species that delegates could not agree to list at CoP15. Others still expressed optimism that CITES could complement RFMOs. This type of cooperation has become a fundamental component of CITES work, with its actions on valuable tropical timber species occurring in close partnership with the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Growing interaction with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) along with decisions taken at CoP16 on CITES Plants Committee (PC) cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Global Strategy on Plant Conservation (GSPC) illustrate additional institutional linkages. Decisions on synergies with other MEAs and especially biodiversity-related conventions also reflect ongoing efforts to harmonize and integrate actions across international bodies. Along with reducing the burden on the CITES Secretariat, and the associated financial benefits accrued by sharing activities across these organizations, the decisions reflect an acknowledgement of the role of CITES across trade, environment and social development realms, and its ability to contribute to the measures taken in these other forums.
The question of "successes" at the CoP drew thoughtful responses from delegates. Some underscored that the decisions drawing cheers and applause in meeting rooms—most notably four listings on commercially-valuable marine species, comprising three proposals on sharks and one on rays—were in fact failures, since a listing only occurs when management and conservation measures have failed. One commented that "we should be crying, not clapping" when such decisions are deemed necessary. Others stated that CITES commitments need to be implemented before earning applause. As Committee II debates revealed, many states have yet to enact CITES-related legislation, despite some having been party to the Convention for more than twenty years. One delegate remarked that this "seriously undermines" the implementation of the Convention, noting the outcomes of CITES decisions depend on domestic action by governments. Reflecting on the paucity of repercussions for this lack of action, numerous parties pushed for the adoption of tougher compliance measures, including suspension of trade for parties that fail to act on their commitments. One respected participant, taking a long view of the Convention, commented that in its early years, parties were reluctant to even discuss penalties for non-compliance. He pointed to current discussions as an indication that "the tusks of CITES have grown."
The decisions taken at CoP16 reinforced many parties' conviction that CITES decision-making processes are up to the challenge of balancing the environmental, social and economic pillars of sustainable development. Now the world will look to CoP17, scheduled to convene in 2016 in South Africa, to see how parties enforce the decisions taken at this meeting, and will judge the outcomes based on their impact on endangered species, whose very existence may hinge on the implementation of the Convention.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Catherine Benson, Kate Harris, Resson Kantai, Kate Neville, Ph.D. and Tanya Rosen. The Digital Editor is Francis Dejon. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV), the Government of Canada (through CIDA), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), and the Government of Australia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2013 is provided by the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Specific funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by UNEP. Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Belgium Walloon Region, Québec, and the International Organization of the Francophone (OIF and IEPF). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) -- United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D - New York, NY 10022 USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone (new!): +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: 17-19 San José, Costa Rica, 1-2 April Washington DC, 6-14 Texas Hill Country (cycling)
Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged
and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario