TL: MEDIA BRIEFING - WILDLIFE TRADERS OUT FOR CITES' SCALP SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DATE: JUNE, 1997 One of the world's main tools to protect endangered wildlife is itself in urgent need of protection. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which has spent over two decades bringing trade in rare plants and animals under control, faces unprecedented pressure from pro-trade interests. At its meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, next week, wildlife traders, some member governments seem set to sacrifice whales, elephants and other species for free trade and profit. What are the pro-traders up to? The main countries wishing to change CITES from a conservation convention into a wildlife trade one are Norway, Japan, Botswana, Canada, Namibia and the conference host, Zimbabwe. Their first aim is to get CITES to abandon its principle of suspending trade when a population is depleted. Attempts at downlisting endangered species from Appendix I to II are a major element of this strategy. All of the three Southern African nations and the two whaling nations listed above have tabled proposals to this effect. Why exploit wildlife? It is understandable that developing countries should feel an urgent need to cash in on their wildlife. Often tourism is the most economically important way to do this, but well regulated trade in certain valuable species and their products can play an important part too. The problem is that such trade, if poorly regulated, can lead to smuggling and over-exploitation, leaving the animal or plant population depleted - and typically the local human population no better off. The interests of the international traders are very different from those of local people, much as the traders try to imply that they are one and the same. In fact, traders have shown no interest in sustainability, often shifting trade from one species to another as each becomes rare, whereas local people must rely on sustaining their populations for long term economic benefits. Slack trade regulations do not help conservation and sustainable use of wildlife. Are the pro-traders up-front about their objectives? Not quite. Earlier this year, the German weekly Der Spiegel published leaked material showing how the review of CITES, proposed by Canada in 1994 and to be discussed further in Harare, was part and parcel of the ivory- producing countries' design to weaken the convention. They were frustrated when the conclusions of the review found a majority of CITES members thought the treaty to be effective. Also, the non-governmental groups lobbying for more wildlife trade - some of which have close links to governments - do not proclaim their real mission from the rooftops. The inappropriately named Conservation Action Network (CAN) is a major wildlife traders' grouping - whose membership list is a well-guarded secret. Only slightly more candid is the International Wildlife Management Consortium (IWMC), the public face of the pro- trade lobby at CITES and the IWC. The ivory-producing states have taken a leaf out of these organisations' book by rechristening their cartel, formerly the Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing, as the Southern African Convention for Wildlife Management. Any more deception and secrecy? The Sustainable Use Network (SUN) is trying to cause confusion by distributing materials on CITES in the same lay-out as the Species Survival Network (SSN). Whereas the latter counts Greenpeace among its participants, SUN's membership includes the Japan Whaling Association, the Fur Institute of Canada, the National Trappers Association and the National Rifle Association. Needless to say, SUN does not subscribe to SSN's views on conservation. Definitely undemocratic are the pro-trade lobby's attempts at curtailing CITES' transparency. According to the ivory-producing nations, secret voting is `essential if highly politicised issues are to be decided'. 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. The fight over transparency will be one of the key battles in Harare. So it is wildlife traders pitted against environmentalists? Unfortunately, another complicating factor has come into play. The CITES Secretariat itself has proposed acceptance of shifting whales to Appendix II while at the same time attaching a zero quota to them with the aim of making the downlisting more palatable for countries that might have qualms about it. Not only would such a move be in stark contradiction to the downlisting criteria which were agreed at the last CITES conference, it would also pose a threat for the future. Whereas downlisting is subject to the well-specified conservation criteria just mentioned, CITES has no such guidance for quota-setting, which leaves the door wide open for the zero-quota to be increased later. Greenpeace makes a strong appeal to all parties to maintain CITES as a convention that puts conservation first. Unwarranted downlisting of species, slackening of criteria and reducing the transparency of decision-making procedures all undermine CITES' strength, prestige and effectiveness, and ultimately threaten the survival of numerous species.