TL: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA BRIEFING PAPER ON CITES MEETING HARARE 9-29 JUNE, 1997 SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL,(GP) DT: JUNE, 1997 THE PRO-TRADE SYNDICATE AT CITES: Its secret names and tactics There is a real danger that the CITES parties will make some very harmful decisions at the Harare conference. If they reduce the level of protection for species of great biological and symbolic importance such as whales and elephants, it could open the floodgates for wildlife trade, both legal and illegal. The pro-traders constitute a force to be reckoned with: they are organised in shadowy, deceptively-labelled networks, have close links with a number of governments and feel little passion for democratic procedures. Who are they, what governments are on their side and, most importantly: what are they up to in Harare? Who are the pro-traders? It is often hard to tell what groups and individuals are behind the (nominally) non-governmental pro-trade lobby. By using legitimate arguments about the need for poorer countries with many wildlife species to conserve their wildlife in ways that involve and work for local people, they cloak their profit-centred agenda for trade liberalisation. One group, appearing at fora such as CITES and the International Whaling Commission, is the International Wildlife Management Consortium (IWMC). It is run by Eugene La Pointe, the ex secretary-general of CITES, whose tenure at the Secretariat did not survive the widespread criticism he received for his pro-trade stance while in the job. La Pointe also attended the 1995 meeting of the Alliance for America, a leading anti-environmental coalition. (3) A more shadowy group is the Conservation Action Network (CAN), a green label which conceals a pro-trade organisation. Its membership list is not publicly available but is rumoured to run to about 100 organisations and individuals, including some government representatives. The following people are among CAN's leading figures: Georg Blichfeldt, the former spokesperson of the pro-whaling High North Alliance; Yoshio Kanacko of the Global Guardian Trust with direct links to the Japanese whaling industry; Rick Parsons of Safari Club International, the hunters association; Norm Snow of the Luuvialut Game Council; Dave Gladders of the Inuit Tapirisat Council; and Jon Hutton of Africa Resources Trust (ART), a pro-trade advocacy group, who is at the same time the African representative to the CITES Animals Committee.(3) Two quotes from Hutton may serve to portray the man and his network. Talking about the new CITES criteria for amending the appendices, he said: `The resultant document put to the parties had some unfortunate references to the precautionary principle, but the language that went with it was well constructed.' (1) And sharing his thoughts on the value of nature: `You don't have to be a brain surgeon to realise that wild land cannot compete with agriculture because wild products are not worth anything to anybody. (...) Either you can leave it wild with elephants or you put cattle on it or maize.' Admittedly, he made this statement before the scientific magazine Naturepublished a research paper, earlier this month, that valued the economic services provided by soils, forests, oceans and wild creatures at 33 trillion dollars a year, which is nearly twice as much as global economic production. CAN membership is by invitation only. The group has been fairly successful in keeping its activities quiet, but we do know, from a leaked membership invitation, that its mission is to counteract the work of the Species Survival Network. SSN is a conservation network supported by more than thirty groups including Greenpeace, Humane Society, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which lobbies for strict enforcement of CITES rules to protect wildlife. Another group is SUN (Sustainable Use Network), evidently set up to create confusion with SSN. This intention can be inferred from SUN's strategy of distributing pro-trade information in exactly the same format as SSN. SUN's membership list includes the Japan Whaling Association, the Fur Institute of Canada, the National Trappers Association (US) and the National Rifle Association (US). (4) What governments are on their side? Six countries are taking the lead in the assault on CITES: Japan, Norway, Botswana, Canada, Namibia and Zimbabwe. They have formed an alliance and worked out detailed plans to change CITES from a conservation convention into a wildlife trade one. In January the German weekly Der Spiegel published leaked material showing that a government representative from Zimbabwe was working secretly with other ivory-producing states in Southern Africa to weaken CITES. Their main target is CITES's principle of suspending trade when a population is depleted. Instead, they want trade to be allowed even for endangered populations. The governments of the ivory cartel, the Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing (SACIM), knew that no one would accept such a proposal from them and so began to look for another nation to put forward their proposal. `It required a Western nation or a neutral party to put forward the proposals,'the leaked report observes. In late 1993, the ivory-producing states `began lobbying internationally and in the strictest secrecy for the revision of the treaty.' A `senior European delegate' helpfully suggested that `the best way to achieve the changes to the treaty would be to follow a two-stage process, with the first stage being an evaluation of the present treaty.' (2) The Canadian government obliged the ivory-producing nations by officially proposing at the Conference of Parties in 1994 a review of CITES's effectiveness, which was intended to lead to the desired weakening of the Convention. That review has been completed. The Southern African states were frustrated when the majority of CITES members expressed their opinion that the treaty was effective. The conclusions will be discussed in Harare, where it will be seen whether this strategy to weaken CITES will work. The pro-trade nations' approach to the ivory issue can be gathered from a leaked memo in which Jon Hutton (ART, CAN, CITES Animals Committee) describes the 1994 Conference of Parties (COP). On this occasion, the white rhino was downlisted with an annotation allowing only trade in live animals. He notes: 'This is likely to prove extremely valuable as two important precedents were established: - the downlisting was annotated; that is, it was noted that not all parts can be traded; - the downlisting will be reviewed at the next COP. These are likely to be necessary mechanisms if the elephant is to be downlisted in future.' (1) Sure enough, at the Harare conference, South Africa is proposing to change the annotation to allow trade in rhino horn. The Southern African elephant states have proposed downlisting of their elephant populations for limited trade in ivory, hides and live animals, but their strategy is to ensure that, at a minimum, they will be allowed to downlist elephants for live animal trade, as a courtesy to Zimbabwe for hosting the meeting. The other important downlisting proposal to be discussed in Harare is on whales. The wording of the documents, submitted by Japan and Norway, leaves little doubt that theirs is a concerted effort, which is part of a wider campaign for the reopening of whaling. The proposals are riddled with scientific errors, but despite this, the CITES Secretariat has proposed downlisting with zero-quota for trade. This could allow the whalers to copy the would-be ivory exporters: at a minimum downlisting with zero quotas now, followed by attempts at increasing these at the next CITES conference. On the face of it, Japan's and Norway's proposals might be thought to be non-starters. After all, the organisation responsible for the regulation of whaling is the IWC, with CITES in a self-confessed auxiliary role. But acceptance of the proposal would imply a split between CITES and IWC. Moreover, it would pose an immediate threat to whales, since on the basis of CITES's and the IWC's small print, the zero quota would not apply to Norway - it would be free to export all whales it caught, even though they are caught under an IWC objection. Japan would be free to import and market whales caught on the high seas provided they claimed that the catches were for scientific study. (For further details, see the Greenpeace fact-sheet on whales and the official Greenpeace submission to the conference.) What are the pro-traders up to in Harare? It is quite unpredictable whether the proposals tabled by three Southern African nations and two whaling nations will be passed or rejected. A major factor will be whether transparent democratic procedures prevail in the decision-making process. CITES allows secret voting and has seen more and more of it in the recent past. This goes directly against conservation interests, as made clear by the following remarks by Jon Hutton: `The secret vote was first used for South American mahogany - one of the darling species of the NGOs. The species was not listed, but it only narrowly escaped which would not have been possible with an open vote.' (1) Elsewhere, he notes that the ivory-producing nations felt secret voting to be `essential if highly politicised issues are to be decided. The NGOs watch closely the way that Parties vote.' Here again, the hearts of pro- trade nations and organisations beat as one. The rationale is obvious: governments who publicly defend the ban on ivory trade, cannot afford publicly to vote for lifting it. In a secret ballot, they are more likely to. However, since democratic governments are accountable to the public for their policies, their votes should be public, too. Greenpeace will be sending a delegation to Harare. They can be contacted at the Quality Inn, Harare, phone number Tel 263 4 794461 Fax 263 4 722894.Greenpeace will distributing regular updates from the meeting. For further information contact James Gilllies, Greenpeace International Press Office, Amsterdam tel ++ 31 20 524 9548 (1) Brief Report on Southern African Successes at CITES COP 9, FT lauderdale, USA, 1994. J.M. Hutton, Africa Resources Trust: African Representative CITES Animals Committee. (2) Trip Report, 35th Meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, Geneva, 21- 24 March 1995. R.R. Martin Deputy Director (Research. (3) Special Report: CITES. BBC Wildlife June 1997. A. Rowell. (4) Fax to CITES Management Authorities. 15th May 1997. CITES COP 10 Recommendations from the Sustainable Use Network (SUN).