CITES CoP 17 Johannesburg 2016

[Hank2211]

The regular conference of the parties to the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is set to start in Johannesburg on September 24.

I thought it might be useful for all of us if we had one place where we could set out the issues which would be of interest to hunters generally, and African hunters particularly, which we could then update with the results of the upcoming conference.

I'm not sure of the best way to do this, but I will start by laying out some of the issues and why they matter:

General: Non-Detriment Finding

The European Union has submitted a proposal which would increase the burden on countries which export CITES species to make a "non-detriment" finding. There is a current CITES requirement that countries proposing to grant an export permit for a hunting trophy (I limit myself to hunting throughout) first make a finding that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species (this is a lot different from the US Endangered Species Act which requires an "enhancement" finding).

Among other requirements, the EU’s proposal would require that for any Appendix I species, an exporting country must find that hunting produces “tangible conservation benefits for the species concerned” and that hunting “provide benefits to local communities” for Appendix II species.

This may not sound very different, but it would introduce a whole new level of uncertainty into the export process, and would allow importing countries to second-guess the exporting country's finding (much as the US does today). In fact, many are worried that this is exactly what the EU wants to do.

Lions

Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, the Niger, Mali, Gabon, Guinea, Mauritania, Nigeria and Togo (ever hunted one of these places?!) are proposing to uplift the African lion from Appendix 2 to Appendix 1. This would require the issuance by importing countries of import permits, which are not currently required (except in the US).

I am amused by countries which have wiped out their own lion populations wanting to tell others what they should do to conserve theirs.

White Rhino

Swaziland proposes to alter the existing annotation on the Appendix II listing of Swaziland’s white rhino, to permit a limited and regulated trade in white rhino horn which has been collected in the past from natural deaths, or recovered from poached Swazi rhino, as well as horn to be harvested in a non-lethal way from a limited number of white rhino in the future in Swaziland.

If this were to pass, it would mark a milestone in the conservation of the white rhino (in my view). Too bad South Africa isn't a co-sponsor.

African Elephant

This one is complicated.

Namibia is putting forward a proposal which would allow them to trade in ivory. Namibia says that they, along with other countries, agreed to a moratorium some years ago on the trade in ivory for nine years, provided that there would be a decision making mechanism for the trade in ivory set up by CoP 16. That never happened, so Namibia is arguing they should not be held to the compromise reached earlier, since the other half has refused to live up to their part of the compromise. Seems fair. So likely doomed.

Good for them.

Zimbabwe is submitting a proposal which is substantially similar.

Good for them too.

Meanwhile, Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, the Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Uganda are putting forward a proposal which would uplist the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe from Appendix 2 to Appendix 1.

Not good for them. Or for us.

Cape Mountain Zebra

South Africa is proposing the down listing of the Cape Mountain Zebra from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2.

Others

There are a number of other proposals, including some good ones from Canada to delist the Wood buffalo altogether, and to de-list certain subspecies of cougar.

I can't find any reference to polar bears, so perhaps this is one area where Mr. Obama has accepted defeat. That would be unusual, so I could be wrong on this one.

That's all I came up with. If anyone has others, please feel free to list them, and Wayne, please feel free to correct me where I've gone wrong!

Lastly, anyone should feel free to update as things happen next week in Jo'burg.

 

[Wheels]

Thanks for the info Hank.

Don't ya just love it when people in other countries try and dictate what should happen in your country. Especially after they have screwed up things in their own country. ie: lions in Nigeria, elephants in Kenya.

 

[Pheroze]

Thank you for the comprehensive review. I hope groups such as Conservation Force are lobbying hard on behalf of those countries that have done a good job so far. How stupid for them to be Co trolled by those that failed.

I continue to be impressed by my home and native land (Canada); that applies to hunting and hockey.

 

[cpr0312]

Thanks for the info

 

[CAustin]

Thank you Hank.

 

[rinehart0050]

Thank you @Hank2211.

It will definitely be interesting to see how things play out this year. I totally agree with you about countries decimating their own wildlife populations then giving advise to others on how to manage theirs. Madness. One would think that they would look to countries like RSA, Namibia, etc. that are effectively managing their animal populations and try and apply those methods in other places. Unfortunately, that smacks of logic and common sense a bit too much.

Here's hoping that all goes well.

 

[Hank2211]

Update No. 1.

As I mentioned in my first post with regard to the trade in ivory, the CITES parties have been negotiating a decision-making mechanism (DMM), which would establish a process for a future trade in ivory. Namibia and several other countries agreed to a moratorium on the ivory trade nine years ago, so long as a DMM was established.

Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe put forward a motion at the conference calling for the DMM to be established. Eight other African states put forward a proposal calling for the discussions to be abandoned. Both proposals were rejected, but a third proposal, on whether the discussions for a DMM should continue (actually, that they should start), was also rejected. So that means that the ban stands, but there will be no DMM to allow any trade. That's not the deal Namibia and Zimbabwe and some others agreed to, but that's what we now have.

The ivory discussions aren't over, and it remains to be seen how those who put forward the original proposal will respond.

My take on this is that CITES continues to see its credibility eroded. At some point, some countries may simply decide they can do better without CITES.

 

[rinehart0050]

Thanks for the update Hank! Unfortunate to see things trending the way they are. Looks like a bureaucracy doing what a bureaucracy does best- refuse to do anything.

My take on this is that CITES continues to see its credibility eroded. At some point, some countries may simply decide they can do better without CITES.

Is that an option? I'm guessing that a decision to depart CITES would lead to negative repercussions with any of the remaining members... ie. unable to export any CITES species to member countries until you rejoin CITES or something like that. Looking at their webpage, I could only find 5? countries that are not currently members... N Korea, Haiti, Turkmenistan, South Sudan, and Western Sahara... not exactly the best of company to be in.

 

[ChasingHemingway]

When will we know about leopard permits in SA?

dt

 

[rinehart0050]

I might be mistaken but I was under the impression that the RSA leopard issue was not CITES related. They had permits to issue and just failed to do so- a failure on the part of the RSA government.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[CAustin]

I might be mistaken but I was under the impression that the RSA leopard issue was not CITES related. They had permits to issue and just failed to do so- a failure on the part of the RSA government.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This was my understanding as well. I seem to remember some discussion that RSA was not sure about there data concerning leopard population counts.

 

[rinehart0050]

Hopefully they figure it out and issue permits this year. I suspect there will be some great leopard coming out of rsa once they allow hunting again. I hope to have a chance at one too!

 

[Hank2211]

I might be mistaken but I was under the impression that the RSA leopard issue was not CITES related. They had permits to issue and just failed to do so- a failure on the part of the RSA government.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right. This is not a CITES issue but a purely South African one which they can change at any time.

 

[Wheels]

Thanks for keeping us updated Hank.

 

[Hank2211]

Thanks for keeping us updated Hank.

My pleasure Wheels. I just look forward to hopefully having something positive to say!

 

[Hank2211]

Well, the proposal to uplift the lion is causing some fuss in Jo'burg. You will recall that a bunch of countries which have basically exterminated their lions want to stop those which have not from hunting them in a sustainable manner. Here is what one man had to say at the conference:

"There was a similar sense of outrage from South Africa, Zambia, and private owner Wilfried Pabst.

“We’re being told by people outside, by people my colour of skin, how to run things in Africa,” Pabst said.

He said an attempted ban by the European Union on the importing of trophies was equivalent to banning hunting.

“In southern Africa alone if we ban sustainable use we would destroy 55 million hectares of land under conservation and lose in the region of 20 million animals, hundreds of thousands of jobs, each man or woman supporting a family of 10, and put millions of local people into destitution,” said Pabst, noting sustainable use was a “very successful model”.

“Listen to me very carefully, I mean every word I’m saying,” Pabst said emphatically. “These NGOs out there who propose to be animal protection or husbandry organisations, in my book are criminal.

“Did you hear this? Criminal. Because they are soliciting money under false pretenses. They go out there and say Cecil the lion, we’re going to stop this poor animal and the others from being shot; they do not realise that if what they promise their donors would be converted into real life, we would lose the 55 million hectares and all the jobs I’ve talked about because sustainable use is a key element of funding conservation,” Pabst said.

Permanent Secretary of Zimbabwe Prince Mupazviriho Chiwewete said his country had not received a single cent of the donations collected for Cecil the lion."
​

CITES runs on votes. It may still be possible for the anti-hunt countries to win, and effectively impose their will on the others. But it is things like this which cause treaties to fall apart. So we will see if that is a risk the anti-hunting countries (NGOs don't vote at CITES) are prepared to take.

 

[Wheels]

Permanent Secretary of Zimbabwe Prince Mupazviriho Chiwewete said his country had not received a single cent of the donations collected for Cecil the lion."
.​

Wonder how much Johnny Rodrigues and his family pocketed.​

 

[Hank2211]

Wonder how much Johnny Rodrigues and his family pocketed.​

Wheels, it was in fact Johnny Rodrigues that the new law was aimed at.

I accept and respect everyone's right to express their views about whatever subject they want, including hunting. But to deliberately tell lies goes beyond that and would normally be thought of as some form of fraud. Should be no different here.

 

[Hank2211]

Not sure if the is a big deal for anyone, but some more good news from CITES: South Africa's proposal to transfer the Cape mountain zebra (Equus zebra zebra) from Appendix I to Appendix II of CITES has been adopted at the COP17 to CITES.

Apparently both the government and private ranchers have been instrumental in brining the Cape mountain zebra back from the threat of extinction.

And guess who supports the ranchers? Hunters, not HSUS!

 

[BRICKBURN]

That is good news. Another Zebra to add to the list.