CITES CoP 17 Johannesburg 2016

[PeteG]

This popped up on FB today on the Zambia DNPW page.

If this is true and the minister is aiming at community involvement, then he is certainly on the right track in my mind.
Some interesting stuff said...


Department of National Parks & Wildlife
3 hrs ·
Subject: Tourism and Arts PS calls for rural participation in CITES

September 29, 2016

MINISTRY of Tourism and Arts Permanent Secretary Stephen Mwansa has called for the establishment of the rural communities committee of the conference of parties of Convention On International Trade In Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) .

Making a presentation at the ongoing CITES Conference of Parties (COP 17) in Johannesburg, South Africa yesterday, Mr Mwansa said the participation of rural communities, in the cites decision-making mechanisms, has been almost completely neglected.
“Yet the lack of community engagement in natural resource management is one of the main causes of increased illegal trade in wildlife and other natural resources, and this neglect has far reaching ramifications,” he said.
He noted that the convention has not established any mechanism to assess the social consequences of listing of species in the appendices, and when cites makes decisions that restrict trade, without consultation with the people that share their land and livelihoods with wildlife, unintended consequences, such as illegal harvesting and hunting, are to be expected.
“CITES has no mechanism for addressing effectively the social consequences of its decisions on appendix listing and trade, when the livelihoods of many rural poor depend on that trade, is a serious humanitarian and sustainable development shortcoming,” he said.
Mr Mwansa said exclusively biological focus on the sustainability of biodiversity harvesting and trade can never guarantee sustainable use of any species, in fact it tragically refuses a critical tenet of sustainability as a principle, which requires, in its applications, an ecosystem scale of assessment, in which the social systems with their cultural, economic and political dimensions are embedded.
“The proposed draft resolution seeks, through the establishment of a permanent rural communities committee of the conference of the parties, to give an advisory role to representatives of legally recognized organizations of rural communities and/or Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) organizations on issues pertaining to biodiversity conservation,” he said.
The Permanent Secretary noted that it is envisaged that the proposed committee would provide guidance and advice to the parties, within the administrative structure of the convention, on issues related to biodiversity harvesting and trade, in order to assess, inter alia, the potential social impact of cites decisions, including amendments to proposals, draft decisions and resolutions of the conference of the parties, on peripheral rural communities and local communities.
“Of notable relevance, IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] at its recent world conservation congress held a few weeks ago, adopted a motion on the role of indigenous peoples and local communities in tackling the illegal wildlife trade crisis. This motion, inter alia, urges the director general of IUCN to ‘Promote Opportunities for indigenous peoples and local communities to engage as equal partners in wildlife conservation and management decisions, including through establishing mechanisms for formal and structured consultation in relation to the decisions of multilateral environmental agreements”.
The motion received an overwhelmed support both from governmental and non-governmental IUCN members. Out of 156 governmental members, 139 voted yes for the motion and 17 abstain. We are confident that the same parties that are present here will now show that they want to implement their commitment by adopting the draft resolution that we have presented.
Importantly and recently the G7 environment ministries met in japan on 15 and 16 may 2016, and have issued a communiqué on the main outcomes of the meeting. Interestingly point 28 of the communiqué is relevant to the cites resolution presented by Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia and United Republic of Tanzania for discussion at CITES COP 17 and it reads; “As economic instruments complement other approaches, we reaffirm that sustainable use including the legal commercial trade of wildlife may be beneficial to biodiversity conservation by engaging local communities. In this context, we reaffirm our commitment to effective implementation of CITES.”

 

[BRICKBURN]

A permanent committee that involves/represents/consists of the people most affected by the CITES policies would be a leap forward if the parties LISTEN to them.

for engaging local communities and listening to them, not just the yapping dogs from the self appointed, self important NGO's.

 

[Hank2211]

A permanent committee that involves/represents/consists of the people most affected by the CITES policies would be a leap forward if the parties LISTEN to them.

for engaging local communities and listening to them, not just the yapping dogs from the self appointed, self important NGO's.

I'm a bit cynical. I agree that this step is sensible and important, but only if someone listens. The big someones are the EU and the US. Time will tell.

 

[Pheroze]

What is odd about this initiative is that it shows the government is not adequately presenting the issues of their rural communities. They are asking their constituents to come forward to present information as a separate group. Why can't the country representative just turn up with those persons and offer their evidence? But trying to build agreement to have new members allows the rest of the bureaucracy to stop the initiative.

 

[johnnyblues]

Good job sir. The anti hunting community is very strong. Let's pray we don't loose anymore ground. Let's also pray the piece of crap Hillary gets put out with the trash along with that worthless liberal president.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I'm a bit cynical. I agree that this step is sensible and important, but only if someone listens. The big someones are the EU and the US. Time will tell.

I have moments of delusional hopefulness. They typically pass quickly when you grab a remote and turn a TV on.
Then you have to head into the woods (in your case the jungle mountains) and get it back.

 

[Hank2211]

The CoP passed the following resolution in Jo'burg:

“recommends that all Parties and non-Parties in whose jurisdiction there is a legal domestic market for ivory that is contributing to poaching or illegal trade, take all necessary legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures to close their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory as a matter of urgency…”
​

Unless some governments go crazy (a possibility never to be totally discounted), this should have no impact on hunters. We aren't allowed to trade in our ivory as it is.

What is interesting is the words "that is contributing to poaching or illegal trade" inserted in the resolution. I don't know if that's a big "out" for China or not - seems they just have to say their domestic market is not contributing to poaching, since the government states they supply the ivory, all of which comes from "legal" sources. Right.

 

[BRICKBURN]

PROPOSAL TO UPLIST LIONS TO APPENDIX I FALLS: CITES CoP17.

The Anti's are pissed so it must be true. Can't see anything on CITES website yet.

 

[Hank2211]

PROPOSAL TO UPLIST LIONS TO APPENDIX I FALLS: CITES CoP17.

The Anti's are pissed so it must be true. Can't see anything on CITES website yet.

Haven't been that yet . . .but it would be great news.

Science wins one from time to time . . .

 

[Hank2211]

The CoP passed the following resolution in Jo'burg:

“recommends that all Parties and non-Parties in whose jurisdiction there is a legal domestic market for ivory that is contributing to poaching or illegal trade, take all necessary legislative, regulatory and enforcement measures to close their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory as a matter of urgency…”
​

Unless some governments go crazy (a possibility never to be totally discounted), this should have no impact on hunters. We aren't allowed to trade in our ivory as it is.

What is interesting is the words "that is contributing to poaching or illegal trade" inserted in the resolution. I don't know if that's a big "out" for China or not - seems they just have to say their domestic market is not contributing to poaching, since the government states they supply the ivory, all of which comes from "legal" sources. Right.

This resolution seems to have touched off a storm within the anti community, which means it must be better than I thought!

It still won't have much impact on hunters (at least it appears it won't), but a number of proposals to destroy national stockpiles of ivory were jettisoned, proposals to completely hat the ivory trade were similarly ignored, and this was the resolution passed.

This is worth a thread of its own, but the history of bans, of whatever kind, is not particularly positive.

 

[Hank2211]

Another update. the CoP17 has defeated a motion (put forward by Swaziland) to legalize the trade in rhino horn. Apparently, those who voted against this motion are of the view that banning the trade in rhino horn will save rhinos. Well, the trade has been banned for a long time, and the number of rhino poached are increasing every year. In addition, commercial ranchers who had been keeping rhino and who are a great part of the success of white rhino is south Africa are, in many cases, getting out of the business. Apparently, the security costs are too high, and there is little chance of making any money with rhino.

According to the IUCN, since hunting of white rhino was allowed in 1968, the total population in South Africa has increased from about 2,000 animals to over 20,000 today. And since virtually none of the hunting took place on government owned land, it's pretty clear that far from hunting hurting the species, it may be the only thing which has kept it alive. For black rhino, hunting started in 2004, and in that time populations in South Africa and Namibia have gone from about 1,000 animals to 3,500 - or a 350% increase in 11 years. [IUCN Briefing Paper: Informing Decisions on Trophy Hunting, April 2016]

It's pretty clear - if you want to see rhino wiped out, ban hunting. Now CITES hasn't gone that far (yet), but it seems that none of the countries which want to ban the trade in rhino horn (which, unlike tusks, are pretty easy to remove without hurting the animal) want to put up a penny to deal with the anti-poaching and security costs of keeping rhino. And we know what the result will be if there's no money to be made in keeping and raising rhino.

 

[rinehart0050]

unlike tusks, are pretty easy to remove without hurting the animal

This is the piece that frustrates me the most. If you can remove the horn in a safe manner, causing it to regrow over time, why wouldn't you allow the trade?? By creating a legitimate market of actual business owners that have a vested interest in keeping their rhinos alive and growing horn, you would destroy the black market trade. The legitimate market could sell it at cheaper prices than the black market, eliminating the financial reward for poaching.

Maybe some basic economics courses would help the decision-makers actually make smart decisions. Sad.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

More news today:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wildlife-cites-ivory-idUSKCN1232FB

U.N. gathering rejects southern African bids to trade ivory, rhino horn

By Ed Stoddard | JOHANNESBURG
Namibia and Zimbabwe failed on Monday to convince a U.N. body that they should be allowed to export elephant ivory, while Swaziland lost a bid to sell rhino horn - moves they all argued would protect the animals rather than endanger them.

Member states of the U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) voted overwhelmingly at a conference to reject the proposals to sell tusks and horns, whether they are seized from poachers or taken from animals that die naturally or have been put down by the state because they were, for instance, destroying crops.

"African elephants are in steep decline across much of the continent due to poaching for their ivory, and opening up any legal trade in ivory would complicate efforts to conserve them," said Ginette Hemley, head of conservation group WWF's CITES delegation. "It could offer criminal syndicates new avenues to launder poached ivory."

 

[Hank2211]

View attachment 160477

This is the piece that frustrates me the most. If you can remove the horn in a safe manner, causing it to regrow over time, why wouldn't you allow the trade?? By creating a legitimate market of actual business owners that have a vested interest in keeping their rhinos alive and growing horn, you would destroy the black market trade. The legitimate market could sell it at cheaper prices than the black market, eliminating the financial reward for poaching.

Maybe some basic economics courses would help the decision-makers actually make smart decisions. Sad.

I don't think these people care about economics. They believe it is wrong to treat animals as a 'commodity ', so will oppose any trade. And herein lies the problem. If we disagree on a fundamental moral issue, we are unlikely to reach each other or help animals.

 

[Hank2211]

More news today:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wildlife-cites-ivory-idUSKCN1232FB

U.N. gathering rejects southern African bids to trade ivory, rhino horn

There is an interesting aspect to this.

As you will know, there was a motion at this meeting to uplist the elephant to Appendix 1 for all African populations. Apparently, under the CITES treat, when an animal is uplisted, countries have a right to opt out of that aspect of the treaty altogether. Namibia threatened that they would leave the CITES treaty with respect to elephant altogether if elephant was uplisted. That would have allowed them to trade freely in ivory with any country which has a domestic market.

It was apparently this threat which helped some countries decide uplisting the elephant wasn't worth the risk.

This impacts hunters from countries which follow the CITES system, such as Canada. An appendix 1 classification would require an import permit to bring any parts back, while only the export permit is required if the animal is on appendix 2.

This won't impact US hunters, since the US imposes its own requirements in addition to CITES, and it requires import permits for all ivory, regardless of CITES. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Thanks, Namibia, for standing up for common sense.

 

[Pheroze]

I am truly loving these updates, thanks. I get frustrated by the stupidity, but the dynamics are very interesting. This opt out clause for a process reserved for the most endangered creatures, is a very interesting thing. Could it be that the drafters envisioned the process being hijacked by special interest groups?

 

[spike.t]

PROPOSAL TO UPLIST LIONS TO APPENDIX I FALLS: CITES CoP17.

The Anti's are pissed so it must be true. Can't see anything on CITES website yet.

Haven't been that yet . . .but it would be great news.

Science wins one from time to time . . .

seen this on sci email only happened yesterday

https://www.safariclub.org/what-we-...s/2016/10/04/cites-keeps-lions-on-appendix-ii

 

[spike.t]

https://www.safariclub.org/what-we-...ble-use-conservation-and-livelihoods-at-cop17

https://www.safariclub.org/what-we-...tes-recognizes-hunting-is-a-conservation-tool
Oct 04, 2016
Today, October 4, at the 17th Conference of the Parties in Johannesburg, CITES adopted a formal position on hunting trophies. The resolution recommends that countries fulfill certain standards and procedures – many of which have long been practiced by the hunting community – when deciding whether to issue export and import permits for hunting trophies of CITES-listed species. For example, hunting of some species “should produce conservation benefits” before trade is allowed. Even though some countries might try to use this provision to delay or prevent importation of certain species, the resolution provides balance by also recommending that importing countries thinking of blocking imports “consider the contribution of hunting to species conservation and socio-economic benefits, and its role in providing incentives for people to conserve wildlife.”

At CITES 182 countries, advised by their scientists, recognized the benefits that trophy hunting provides for species conservation and community livelihoods, acknowledging that countries are the best protectors of their own wildlife. They have agreed that attaching economic value to wildlife contributes to conservation and sustainable use of species. CITES Parties know that hunters are true conservationists.

 

[Hank2211]

Well, I think the CITES meeting is over. Peace in the valley, as they say, for another 3 years, I think.

There is not much else to report, other than what was cited above. The scientists seem pleased; the antis less so.

Hunters came out of the conference probably as well as could be expected, and perhaps a little better, at least on a macro level. We didn't lose anything we had going in, and there seem to be some reasonable acknowledgements that hunting, including trophy hunting, can be a force for conservation see @spike.t above). In addition, there was a clear movement towards community empowerment, which is generally favourable for hunting.

When we get this kind of result, it's often useful to remind those with whom we are discussing hunting that the best informed voices on the planet do not take issue with legal, regulated sport hunting, or trophy hunting, even of animals which might be "endangered" (on Appedices 1 or 2). This position should be compared to the shrill voices of groups such as HSUS and PETA, which, based on the facts as accepted by the scientists, must have some other purpose in mind. What could it be? Oh, right. Money.

I think that's something reasonable people can understand.

 

[Pheroze]

Thanks for your time and effort to report on this! Much appreciated