Statement by the Secretary-General of CITES on elephants and international trade in ivory Geneva, 26 February 2010 I acknowledge and value the engaged and passionate debate surrounding elephant conservation and international trade in ivory. However, I was saddened to see that recently this has degenerated into some unwarranted and unjustified attacks upon the objectivity of the UN’s CITES Secretariat. It is not the usual practice of this Secretariat to respond to one-sided or inaccurate descriptions of the Convention or try to correct them. However, as we draw near to the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, to be held from 13 to 25 March 2010 in Doha, Qatar, I have noticed a number of published statements bringing the Secretariat into disrepute that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I do not intend to go into detailed explanations of the role of the Secretariat or how CITES Parties adopt the rules regarding international wildlife trade. I trust the following remarks will suffice in addressing some of the inflammatory comments that seem to be increasingly levelled at the integrity of the Secretariat. To begin with, CITES is a member-driven Convention. Member States can, and do, adopt the many decisions, measures and instructions that are needed to ensure that trade in wild species listed in CITES Appendices is not incompatible with their survival. The Secretariat plays a supportive role which is entirely objective and impartial. The current rules relating to international trade in ivory, i.e. which includes what is commonly described as a ‘nine-year moratorium’ on trade in elephant ivory from populations already in Appendix II, were decided by consensus at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP14), which took place in The Hague in 2007. The decision was adopted on the basis of a written document submitted by Chad and Zambia on behalf of Africa (see document CoP14 Inf. 61). This document, which was presented to the Conference of the Parties by the representative of Chad, was drafted on the sidelines of CoP14 by the African elephant range States themselves. The CITES Secretariat was not involved at all in its drafting. Consequently, the allegations I have read, which suggest that the Secretariat somehow manipulated the wording to alter the scope of a moratorium, are wholly without foundation. The other allegation that has been made is that the Secretariat favours the proposals submitted by the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia (which seek an authorization to trade in stockpiled ivory) over the proposal submitted by the Congo, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Rwanda and Sierra Leone (which opposes such trade). Much emphasis is being placed on the fact that the Secretariat has published comments on the latter proposal, but not on the former. This is entirely consistent with long-established practice, where the Secretariat awaits the report of the Panel of Experts, which was convened on the instructions of the Conference of the Parties to evaluate in-situ a variety of factors, such as elephant population numbers, conservation management measures, trade controls, etc., in the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia. I expect the Panel’s report to be published in the coming days. Immediately thereafter, as required in the text of the Convention, the Secretariat will provide its comments on the proposals submitted by those two countries. Finally, it has been alleged that the Secretariat has shown 'favouritism' by only reminding the proponents that oppose ivory trade of the importance to consult all African elephant range States about their proposal. But this is simply in line with existing CITES provisions. The ivory trade ban would directly affect all African elephant range States, whereas the proposals from the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia solely concern their own elephant populations. They are therefore not required to undertake such consultations. Whatever the Secretariat's final comments on the proposals may be, they will be based upon objective assessments, using the criteria that CITES Parties themselves have adopted and that reflect the provisions and principles of the Convention. Here again, the Secretariat has been and continues to be entirely impartial. I look forward to a rich, open, honest and objective debate in Doha, regarding the three elephant-related proposals. I urge all participants to respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to act in a manner consistent with those principles. We look forward to seeing you there.
Willem Wijnstekers |