Posted on 20 Apr 2010 at 9:08pm By GavinoThree years from now, when member states of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) next meet for a Conference of the Parties (COP), polar bears will be roaming around the Arctic as they are today, elephants will continue to populate Africa, Atlantic Bluefin Tuna will inhabit the same waters, red coral will grow in the Mediterranean and various shark species will still glide through our oceans. But if you relied for your information on media reports, animal rights lobby groups and the wisdom of certain (mainly western) government officials, you would think that mankind had sold its soul in Doha, where CITES COP 15 recently concluded, and was ineptly standing on the edge of a wildlife abyss.
Anyone for a ban...?
Public interest in CITES is as sporadic as might be expected from an international organization that usually meets in full session for two weeks every three years. Still, it has an important role, limiting or prohibiting trade in endangered species where this would help their recovery.
In a perfect world, the world’s wildlife wisdom would be brought to bear on species that are genuinely threatened by trade, problems would be identified, measures established, and once the species had recovered, we could get back to normal. If only it were that simple.
In wildlife politics, normal does not exist. There is little agreement on desirable population levels because most of the pressure comes from groups that really support animal rights, which means zero utilization of animals. Most of them take on the mantle of animal welfare organizations to maximize their love-ability and credibility, and argue for the lowest level of exploitation they can hope to achieve from any conservation process.
And, of course, what often matters most is the attractiveness of the species to humans – elephants, tigers, whales and others – rather than their actual status. It is no coincidence that these charismatic species also prove to be the most lucrative fundraising icons for the animal rights groups.
The main event in Doha was the rejection of a proposal to ban trade in the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, drafted by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and formally presented by the inscrutable tax haven of Monaco. With 5 million of these fish defying the label of endangered, delegates agreed by 68 votes to 20 that they will be better managed by the dedicated fisheries body, ICCAT.
The animal rights lobby also overreached on other non-endangered species, failing to secure CITES listings for polar bears, several shark species and corals. Disappointingly, the United States and European Union, rather than upholding the Convention’s objectives, facilitated these proposals. Playing to a public whose attention is peeked more by crisis than normalcy, the media also predictably did its bidding for the animal rightists, characterizing the meeting as a disaster that was hijacked by bullying Asians and inscrutable third-worlders.
A few weeks later and the apocalyptic warnings have become history, the wire agencies have billed their media clients, the animal rights groups have pocketed their fundraising and, not surprisingly, the world goes on. As with their environmental cousins making hay over supposed man-made climate change, there is little behind all the wildlife hysteria and hyperbole.
