A review of IUCN engagement in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) © Dan Challender International Union for Conservation of Nature A REVIEW OF IUCN ENGAGEMENT IN THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES)1 (18 April, 2011) Contents (page) I. Introduction (2) II. A Review of IUCN’s Past and Present Engagement in CITES (4) A. IUCN Commissions past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 (6) B. IUCN Secretariat past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 (23) C. TRAFFIC past and present involvement in CITES, mapped against the CITES Strategic Vision 2008-2013 (37) III. The Future Engagement of IUCN in CITES? (48) Annexes I. Current Engagement Procedures for IUCN Secretariat and Commission staff and Commission members, with particular reference to the Conference of Parties (51) Appendices I. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and IUCN-The World Conservation Union July 1999 (52) II. IUCN Statement to the Parties: CITES 15th Conference of the Parties – 13-25 March 2010 (55) III. Report from CITES 15th Conference of the Parties Meeting (March 13 - 25, 2010) (59) IV. The End Of CITES As We Know It? A Discussion Paper by TRAFFIC International on the outcomes of the 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES and what it holds for the future of the Convention (102) V. The Species Trade: CITES in the new millennium. World Conservation 3. (119) VI. AfESG past and present engagement with CITES (155) VII. Abbreviations and Acronyms (168) 1 This review draws on the inputs and guidance of the following individuals: Raquibul Amin, Francoise Burhenne, Dena Cator, Thomas Greiber, Sarah Lucas, Sue Mainka, Helen Pippard, Alison Rosser (ex‐) and Jane Smart (Secretariat); Sheila Abed, Ariadne Angulo, Hans de Iongh, Holly Dublin, Richard Emslie, Tandora Grant, Jon Hutton, Dietrich Jelden, Richard Jenkins, Danna Leaman, Phil McGowan, David Minter, Randy Reeves, Yvonne Sadovy, Peter Sand, Diane Skinner, Ali Stattersfield, Simon Stuart, Peter Paul van Dijk, and Grahame Webb (Commissions); and Steve Broad, Thomasina Oldfield, and Sabri Zain (TRAFFIC). I. INTRODUCTION Following a contentious 15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention in Doha, Qatar, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is perceivably at a crossroads1. The challenges facing the Convention, which has as its mandate to “ensure that international trade in (all) specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival” include, among others: 1) evolving to address and meet the needs of commercially important species, especially in relation to sustainable international use and trade; 2) addressing decision-making that is sometimes based primarily on political and economic considerations in lieu of scientific information; 3) identifying synergies with other existing environmental governance mechanisms; 4) promulgating measures that lead to conservation via economic incentives; 5) combating threats to progress in traditional heartland issues such as elephants and tigers; and 6) capacity – both in terms of human resources and finance – to effectively implement CITES measures. As CITES moves to regulate international trade of commercially important species, especially fisheries species, tensions are rising. CITES delegations do not necessarily comprise only Environment Ministries and scientists, but may be dominated by Foreign Affairs and other government representatives. Instructions from governments often relate to more than environmental concerns and focus on economic and political issues, sometimes, and probably increasingly, resulting in decisions that are not necessarily based on sound science and conservation values. More than ever, the legally binding measures of CITES relating to the trade in species are being seriously considered as an impediment to growing national economies. Countries are reticent to list commercial species on the CITES Appendices for fear of economic and political repercussions, uncertainty about the ability of CITES to manage international trade of these species, and concerns over the difficulty of downlisting or removing them from the Appendices in the future. Increasingly, many CITES Parties are suggesting that the management of commercial species (particularly marine) may be better dealt with through environmental governance mechanisms other than CITES, for example through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)2. Yet, CITES may offer unique tools that help to manage international trade of species, and has a membership (175 Parties) that is much larger than many other mechanisms. Furthermore, for some species and areas, there is no relevant or operational RFMO (or other mechanism in the case of non-marine species), and CITES is currently one of the, if not the only, means to move towards sustainable international trade. Parties are also demanding synergy and harmonization with other biodiversity- related Conventions, particularly with the Convention on Biological Diversity in light of the newly adopted Strategic Plan for 2011-20203. CITES is also being asked to seek closer integration with achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and linkages with the wider development agenda and human livelihoods. Crucially, CITES has yet to find a systematic way of encouraging and supporting measures that lead to effective implementation of the Convention via economic incentives. At CoP15, an agenda item on identifying options available for strengthening CITES as a regulatory certification scheme was rejected by Parties, which has led to assertions by some that the Parties are not interested in looking at “carrots” but only “sticks”. At the same time as new commercially important species are being considered in the CITES agenda, the same issues that existed when the Convention was first formulated in 1973 still exist – CITES is still trying to regulate international trade in tigers, elephants, and rhinos. The nature of the threats to these species is dynamic, both temporally and spatially, making the treatment of such wide-ranging species challenging, especially given nationally contrasting situations4. Another major challenge to an effective CITES is resources5. The pre-Rio Conventions are all locked into annual operating budgets of ~USD5-6 million per year, yet Parties continue to expand their requests, particularly of the Convention Secretariat (sometimes to resolve complex and outstanding issues). Meanwhile, the Rio Conventions have budgets an order of magnitude larger. Human capacity and resources to implement CITES is limited. The CITES regulation chain includes national scientists, government employees from inter alia environment/ customs/ quarantine/ forestry/ fisheries, and the private sector. Having each understand their roles and responsibilities, and providing them the necessary tools and training with which to implement the 1 Stokstad, E. 2010. Trade trumps science for marine species at international meeting. Science 328: 26‐27. 2 http://www.cites.org/eng/news/SG/2010/20101119_sg_statement_ICCAT.shtml 3 http://www.cbd.int/sp/ 4 Some of the most successful range states view controlled legal trade of their increasing populations as a positive (or possible positive) conservation measure that could also contribute to reducing illegal trade. Other range states disagree, with resentment towards CITES seemingly growing in some range states with successful conservation programmes. 5 Phelps et al. 2010. Boosting CITES. Science 330: 1752‐1753. Convention at the national level, is a gargantuan task. As CITES comes to include commercially exploited marine species, institutional challenges have arisen because, historically, fishery departments have not dealt with CITES-listed species and the government departments with this experience, such as forestry, have little or no experience with fisheries issues. On the positive side, CITES has proven an important and effective instrument for regulating the international trade for many species, having contributed, for example, to the improvement in the conservation status of the Vicuña (Vicugna vicuna)6 and many crocodilian populations, among others. CITES now has a new Secretary General (a former head of IUCN’s Environmental Law Centre) who is already moving fast to re-focus the Convention and support the necessary changes. In tandem, with this change in leadership comes a statement of renewed commitment and support from UNEP to administer the Secretariat. 6 Hoffmann, M. et al. 2010. The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. Science 330: 1503‐1509. II. A REVIEW OF IUCN’S PAST AND PRESENT ENGAGEMENT IN CITES IUCN’s role in CITES stretches back to 1963 when the idea for a wildlife trade convention was first proposed at the 7th IUCN General Assembly in Nairobi. Since the Convention entered into force in 1975, IUCN has been a significant supporter and technical advisor to the Convention. Indeed, several Decisions and Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties have specifically requested IUCN’s assistance in working with the CITES Secretariat and the Parties. For example, the original CITES rhino Resolution 9.14