International trade of
wildlife is an old practice which dates hundreds of years back.
It was only in
the last century that the global community agreed to set a framework regulating
this lucrative trade through CITES. The text of the Convention was negotiated
in the early 70s and entered into force on 1 July 1975. Today there are 181 parties signatories, making it one of the most accepted and acceded
Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA). Its main objective is to ensure
that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not
threaten their survival.
This picture shows an import of rhino horns in Spain coming from South Africa. It was authorized by the Spanish CITES Management Authority (M.A) as a hunting trophy for non-commercial purposes according to the indication in the CITES Appendices (annotation 6).
Illegal wildlife trade is not defined per se in the text of the Convention, but it may be induced by combining several provisions of CITES:
-
Article I defines
trade as ‘export, re-export, import and
introduction from the sea’. It also defines specimen in
general as any animal or plant, whether alive or dead or any readily
recognizable part or derivative thereof. This terms have to be interpreted in
accordance with the annotations in the Appendices.
-
Article II stipulates that Parties are not to allow trade in specimens of listed species
except in accordance with the Convention.
-
Article VIII requires Parties to take appropriate measures to prohibit trade in violation of
the Convention and to enforce its provisions. These domestic measures include those to penalize illegal trade or possession and to provide for the
confiscation or return to the State of export of illegally traded or possessed
specimens.
If trade in listed
species is only allowed in accordance with the Convention, it could therefore
be induced that illegal wildlife trade is any export, re-export, import and
introduction from the sea of any animal or plant, whether alive or dead or any
readily recognizable part or derivative of listed species in contravention of
the provisions of the Convention.
Typical violations
include trading without an appropriate and valid permit or certificate; trading
in violation of the conditions set out in a permit or certificate; obtaining a
permit or certificate through false statement; fraudulently altering a permit
or certificate; tampering with an identification mark; and possessing a wild
animal or plant or specimen that was illegally obtained. These
all require a transnational aspect:
CITES provisions only apply to
international cross-border movements of wildlife.
For further analysis of wildlife trafficking as a crime, I would recommend to read Dr. Wyatt's book: Wildlife Trafficking: A deconstruction of the crime, the victims and the offender’, (Critical Criminological
Perspectives, Ed. Palgrave McMillan 2014), which offers a thorough study worth reading.
Without going into
each type of breach, it must be remembered that every party signatory to the
Convention may penalize these actions in a different way. Normally, they are
viewed as 'administrative’ breaches rather than as ‘serious’ breaches because of the
economic element that they represent (they are frequently motivated by the
desire to make money or to avoid regulatory costs). As a result, they may not
attract sufficient government interest and resources.
Notwithstanding,
growing global concern over illegal trade, particularly following estimated
record levels of illegal poaching and trade of rhinos and
on-going traffic in ivory, valuable timber, and thousands of other species has shown that illegal trade needs to be at the forefront of debates.
At Barajas Airport in Madrid, a display of numerous ivory tusks and one rhino horn confiscated by the Spanish authorities. These pieces are kept within the airport premises for educational purposes.
Wildlife trafficking may be found in combination with well-established crimes such
as fraud, counterfeiting, arms trafficking, conspiracy, bribery and money
laundering. What is more: the level of profits acquired can be quite high
depending on the rarity and preciousness of the species.
This is why the
international community has started looking at the issue as a ‘mainstream’
problem in the same way as drug or arms trafficking, and more initiatives are
seeing the light.
A little bit of CITES history...
CITES first started
calling the attention to this issue in its Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP15)
related to the conservation and trade in African and Asian rhinoceroses whereby
it is recognized that
‘illegal trade in
rhino horn is a global law enforcement problem extending beyond range states
and traditional consuming countries’.
At that moment, Parties were called
to implement enforcement controls with the objective of reducing illegal trade.
The same ideas were conveyed later on in relation to trade in bears in
Resolution Conf. 10.8 (Rev. CoP14) stating that illegal trade undermines the
effectiveness of the Convention.
A further step was taken with Resolution Conf.10.10 (Rev. CoP16) on trade in elephant specimens were parties not only
required urgent and concerted efforts, but proposed a series of specific
measures such as the use and contribution of parties with information on
seizures and confiscations to the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS)
which monitors the scale and pattern of illegal trade in ivory and other
elephant specimens since 1998.
CITES took a
horizontal and cross-cutting approach towards illegal trade in Resolution Conf.11.3 (Rev. CoP16) which may be read in combination with Decisions 16.39 and16.40 on Enforcement matters.
Without making an exhaustive analysis of these
important documents, it is necessary to underline that they acknowledge illegal wildlife trade as a major concern, cause of serious damage to wildlife,
and its effects on reducing the effectiveness of management programmes and
undermining legal and sustainable trade particularly in the developing
countries.
Countries that import these illegally obtained
resources are considered as directly responsible for encouraging illegal trade
worldwide and therefore CITES parties recognize a clear need to strengthen the
enforcement of the Convention as a tool to fight illegal wildlife trade.
Resolution Conf. 11.3 establishes a set of very specific recommendations to
Parties on compliance, control, cooperation, communication of information and
coordination. Notably, it recommends the use of INTERPOL Ecomessage and
provides Guidance for the creation of specialized Wildlife Law Enforcement
units.
As for Decisions 16.39
and 16.40, the CITES Secretariat was directly compelled to submit a report on
enforcement matters at each Standing Committee meeting and each regular meeting
of the Conference of the Parties and establish Wildlife Incident Support Teams
(WISTs) at the request of a country. The first report was submitted during the
Standing Committee meeting of July 2014.
At the
request of Sri Lanka, the first WIST was deployed (led by INTERPOL) in July
2013 to assist national authorities to
determine the origin of the ivory and
potentially identify the criminal networks behind large-scale elephant poaching
(SC65 Doc. 27.1).
There is no doubt that
illegal wildlife trade has seen a raising concern from the parties to the
Convention. It could therefore be understood that the main international
instrument to fight wildlife trafficking is CITES. However, there seems to be
sometimes a misconception about the role CITES plays: the objective of the
Convention is to regulate trade to sustainable levels, and not to ban trade.
According to the former Chief of Legal Affairs & Trade Policy at the CITES Secretariat:
‘International trade
in wildlife should not be considered as synonymous with illegal wildlife trafficking.
It is possible to have legal, sustainable and traceable trade in wildlife, and
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES or the Convention) is a tool for ensuring this’.
In fact, some CITES
Resolutions acknowledge the important role that trade may play in conservation.
For instance, in Resolution Conf. 8.3 (Rev. COP 13) parties recognize that:
‘Commercial trade may be beneficial to the conservation
of species and ecosystems or to the development of local people when carried
out at levels that are not detrimental to the survival of the species in
question’
As a matter of fact,
it should be considered that in the struggle for the conservation of species,
illegal wildlife trade only represents part of the problem, together with
habitat degradation, pollution, human-animal conflict and urban development.
On the other hand, the success or failure of the Convention depends directly in the way it
Reeve states that the Secretariat has a great role in monitoring compliance through analysing the periodical reports received from each Party, however, these are often incomplete or inaccurate making it very difficult for the Secretariat to determine who is in non-compliance (Policing International Trade in Endangered Species: The CITES Treaty and Compliance, Routledge 2002).
Even if these situations are
clearly observed, a cooperative approach is the first attempt to try to achieve
compliance, and only in very clear or frequent situations will there be a
possibility to propose stopping all CITES trade with that particular country.
Even then, this is a voluntary suspension rather than a legally-binding
obligation for other parties, although it has been used to effectively gain
compliance from parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment