CITES Under Threat?
By Rosalind Reeve. Email: ros@africaonline.co.ke

The system that has evolved over nearly 30 years to induce states to implement and enforce the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is one of the most effective among multilateral environmental agreements. Unlike newer regimes, it comprises not one but a web of mechanisms to address non-compliance that have been elaborated on over many years of practice. Trade sanctions play a crucial role. If a party fails to comply with CITES trade controls, it can find itself subject to a recommended suspension of trade in one or more CITES-listed species.

A suspension of all CITES trade, in effect a blanket suspension, can be recommended for persistent generalized non-compliance by problem countries, or for non-compliance in relation to particular issues, e.g., illegal trade in high-profile species, such as rhinos, tigers, and elephants. Since it was first used in 1985, this effective non-compliance tool has been wielded against 29 countries and its use is increasing. In the last few years, more blanket suspensions have been recommended or threatened against non-compliant parties than ever before - and the majority of those targeted have responded positively. Moreover, the circumstances under which suspensions can be recommended have expanded. They are now used regularly to address non-compliance with CITES reporting requirements as well as requirements for national implementing laws. At the same time, new concepts have been introduced such as legislation plans, formal cautions, and compliance action plans.

Ironically, during this period of rapid evolution, negotiations have been set in motion for a set of guidelines on compliance that could have a detrimental impact on the existing system. The proposed guidelines, formally initiated in 2002, find their origin in hard-hitting decisions taken by the Conference of Parties (CoP) in 2000. These paved the way for trade suspensions against parties which had failed to enact CITES implementing legislation or to report their trade data to the global database for three years in a row. More than 60 percent of parties were potentially affected, sparking a near rebellion in the Standing Committee tasked with their implementation. Regional representatives balked at recommending sanctions. Instead they adjusted deadlines and allowed time to draw up legislative plans and submit trade data. Many affected parties complied, but not all were responsive and as their adjusted deadlines passed, 18 fell prey to suspensions either for lack of legislation or failing to report data or both. Eleven have since responded and had sanctions lifted.

The sheer number of affected parties prompted a debate in the Standing Committee on different forms of non-compliance response. Preference was expressed by some for facilitation over a sanctions-based approach. As a result, the CITES Secretariat, which plays an unusually strong role in matters concerning compliance, proposed the negotiation of a set of guidelines. The CoP agreed but provided no guidance on the nature of the guidelines or how they would relate to existing compliance mechanisms.

The guidelines have now been through two drafts. The revision, incorporating written comments from parties, was broadly reflective of existing mechanisms and was well received by non-governmental and expert observers earlier this year. The reaction of Standing Committee members, however, was mixed. Only the EU and US approved the draft; other countries were critical, many expressing a desire for more capacity building and less punitive measures. While the EU approved the draft's detailed procedures, others did not. There was even extensive debate on the procedural way forward for negotiations. The EU wanted them conducted in an open-ended working group under CoP auspices; others wanted a working group under the Standing Committee closed to observers. In an unsatisfactory compromise, an open group with a closed 'nucleus' was asked to take the guidelines forward, but how this arrangement is going to function was not made clear. Meanwhile, no agreement could be reached on using the revised text as a basis for negotiations. In just a few days the guidelines had become a hot topic, outranking even the debate on pending ivory sales.

Another twist has set the scene for more controversy at the October meeting of the CoP in Bangkok. The EU has tabled the contentious revised text for open discussion. In other circumstances this may have been an admirable blow for transparency, but for CITES it presents a high-risk strategy. If there were resources to buy compliance through capacity building, the risk may not be so great. But this is not the case; a shrinking annual budget severely limits the choice of tools to deal with non-compliance. Meanwhile, confusion reigns - over the nature of the guidelines, how they relate to existing mechanisms, and over the mechanisms themselves. Rather than pushing the process, there needs to be a step back to allow questions to be answered and to bring parties to a similar level of understanding of the existing system. Otherwise years of work could be unraveled and use of the system's most effective tool - trade suspensions - weakened irreparably.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is cooperating with Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, to facilitate the sharing of wildlife enforcement information through the promotion of Ecomessage.

Interpol's Ecomessage facilitates the communication of information about international wildlife crimes. It will help enforcement officers quickly communicate even the most sensitive law enforcement information to the Interpol General Secretariat in Lyon, France, and to other enforcement agencies anywhere on earth whose participation is needed in a particular wildlife criminal investigation.

Poor communication has repeatedly been cited as a key cause of inadequate international cooperation in the fight against wildlife crime. Law enforcement agencies are not transferring critical data to the right agencies in other countries quickly enough. Criminals trafficking in protected wildlife are escaping as a consequence. In the coming months, the Interpol and IFAW will distribute an Ecomessage folio to all CITES Management Authorities and selected wildlife law enforcement agencies worldwide.

The folio will be produced in Interpol's four working languages (Arabic, English, French, and Spanish), and contain instructions and forms in hard copy as well as CD-Rom. To provide an incentive to use Ecomessage, IFAW is sponsoring a US$30,000 Ecomessage Award that will be presented during CoP13 in Bangkok to the agency that files the most "significant" Ecomessage during a CITES inter-sessional period.

The Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime will oversee the award selection. The criterion of "significance" is defined as the Ecomessage that most meaningfully contributes to the international fight against the criminals who illegally traffic in protected wildlife. In lieu of cash, the winner will receive up to $30,000 in training and/or law enforcement equipment that is of particular need to the winning agency. See www.ifaw.org for more information.