Forum (Spotlight Weekly)

CITES And Trade Of Wildlife Species

By SUBAS DHAKAL

Consequence of ever increasing consumption of wildlife (flora and fauna) for various purposes is such that illegal wildlife trade is now one of the most lucrative businesses globally. Wildlife trade varies from live animals, birds, plants to raw leather, furniture, drinks and medicines. Yet, most popularly it is traded as aphrodisiacs significantly threatening the continuous survival of the endangered species worldwide. ‘I like the soup mixed with powder of ‘deer’s sprouting antlers because it brings me a much needed vitality’, a Vietnamese graduate student in Thai university admits proudly. Such beliefs are well rooted in South and Southeast Asian culture as even Thai elites are obsessed with consuming shark fin soup as a novelty and aphrodisiac despite the fact that presence of high level of mercury in shark causes impotency! Not much need to be said about the Traditional Chinese Medicine that are readily available in Chinatowns across the world with a ridiculous general rule of thumb that ‘rarer the species, better the potency’! Nepalese elites are also not much different as they are found to be fond of wearing ‘elephant-hair bracelet’ for dumb superstitious beliefs. Such beliefs have amplified the magnitude of illegal trade thereby causing endangered species like Rhino, Elephant, Tiger and Snow Leopard in Nepal as well to be inhumanly poached and traded piece by piece.

Wildlife trade has been partly bolstered because of countries like Thailand, which allows some legal trade of wildlife including ivories but with multiple loopholes in a system. Problem of wildlife trade was eminent months before the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) conference began when Thai government took action against its highest ranking official of a concerned department for his involvement in gruesome trading of 100 wild tigers! Atrocities of wildlife trade in Thailand and its neighboring countries have also been revealed by the author Ben Davies, in his forthcoming book ‘Black Market–Inside the Endangered Species in Asia’ suggesting Thailand as a safe haven and hub of an illegal wildlife trade. According to the book, magnitude of such wildlife trade worldwide is worth more than 6 billion US dollars/year. Ironically CITES, an international agreement active since mid-seventies with a goal to reduce trade related threats to the wildlife held its 13th conference of parties in Bangkok during the month of October. CITES functions by subjecting an international trade in wildlife of selected species to certain controls requiring trade of enlisted (about 5,000 animals and 28,000 plants species so far) wildlife species only through authorization.

There are three categories of CITES enlistment: Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction and trade is almost never allowed, Appendix II includes species not threatened with extinction but requires trade control measures and Appendix III includes species that may be protected in at least one country that seeks assistance from others to control its trade. Nations abide to CITES voluntarily and instead of overriding the existing national legal provisions, CITES rather provides a framework to be honored by each nations requiring them to enact their own legislations. Either newly enlisting or varying the existing enlistment status of some wildlife species including Minke Whale and Black Rhino were the highlighted issue this time. Perhaps the strength (or weakness) of CITES is such that it takes the ‘realistic’ approach allowing regulated trade of wildlife instead of a complete ban of species. In that milieu, Japan strongly lobbied changing the status of its Minke Whale from Appendix I to II allowing ‘much-needed’ legal whaling but failed. Frustrated Japanese delegates went as far as arguing that consumption of whale was domestic issue and since there was no actual international trade involved, CITES shouldn’t worry about it! On the contrary, in what is seen as one of the most dramatic moves of the conference, some African countries were allowed to revive the hunting quotas of African Black Rhinos for the first time in many years.

During the conference, Kenya and its delegates were highly praised for their pro-conservation stance in opposing Rhino and Ivory trade. Like Nepal, Kenya is also heavily dependent on wildlife tourism and its belief that wildlife are worth more ‘alive and free’ than ‘dead and traded’ certainly reflected the fact that its leading environmentalist winning a Nobel Prize this year was not a mere coincidence. However, outcomes of Bangkok conference were not rosy for many conservationists because of lack of clarity in how to go about promoting ‘sustainable wildlife management’ through more liberal wildlife trade while ‘combating illegal trade’ simultaneously. Another drawback was that CITES was not able to justify the different outcomes for Black Rhino and Minke Whale at all. Several organizations and conservationists once again failed to convince CITES that legalizing wildlife trade does not necessarily solve poverty nor does it benefit conservation in a holistic manner. Only implication of CITES and what appears to be its shifting stance towards ‘Consumption’ from ‘Conservation’ is such that it validates attempts of those who have been lobbying for the liberalization of wildlife trade/farming in Nepal.

Thanks to the CITES Bangkok Conference, Nepalese wildlife officials will no longer have to hide their wrists from journalist’s camera for wearing an ‘elephant-hair-bracelet’ because it will now be a part of what is called ‘sustainable wildlife management’! n

(Author is a graduate student at Faculty of Environment and Resources Studies in Mahidol University, Thailand and can be contacted at: subasdhakal@gmail.com)