The CITES Animals Committee met in Geneva, Switzerland, on July 18-22, 2011, and yours truly attended. There were at least six agenda items and actions of direct and immediate importance to the safari hunting industry:
• Two proposals were made concerning the status of the African lion. One was to review the African lion in the significant trade review process to see if its trade was excessive, and the second was a request by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) to urgently review the listing of the lion to determine if it is listed correctly or should be uplisted.
• Canada recommended that the mountain lion be reviewed for its listing status, and the USF&WS joined in to add the lion in the United States. The USF&WS reported that its review of the bobcat demonstrated it should be kept on Appendix II.
• Mexico reported, and the Committee accepted Mexico’s recommendation, that jaguar should be kept on Appendix I.
• The non-detriment finding for hippopotamus being exported from Cameroon, Ethiopia and Mozambique is to be reviewed in the significant trade review process.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are held every three years (175 country Parties). The two scientific committees meet annually. At this meeting there were more than 17 substantive items on the agenda, more than 200 participants and at least 12 intersessional working groups were agreed upon.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are I usually attend these intersessional meetings between the meetings of the Conference of the Parties, CoPs, as the representative of Conservation Force, which is an International NGO Observer, INGO. Of course, Conservation Force represents many other organizations, some of which are qualified observers themselves, such as IPHA, which is also an INGO and, in the past, CIC, which is an Intergovernmental Observer, IGO. At this meeting CIC was represented by the immediate Past Secretariat General of CITES, retired Willem Wijnstekers. That is good news in itself. CIC’s prestigious new representative has just authored the 7th Edition of The Evolution of CITES, which is the Bible of the Convention if there is one. The latest edition was published by the CIC. Following is my report on developments at the Animals Commitee meeting that are of concern to hunters and our industry:
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are African Lion Averts Double Reviews: The USF&WS “recommended that the Committee add Panthera leo (African lion) as a high priority for review, to be conducted before the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.” Kenya positioned itself to conduct the periodic listing review before arrival at the meeting, and the antis, Species Survival Network (SSN), mail campaigned for Kenya before the meeting started. The moment the recommendation was orally introduced by the USF&WS, Kenya volunteered to conduct the review. The new Chairman of the Committee responded “excellent” without a pause. Tanzania and most of the southern African countries were not in attendance, so there was little that could be done by NGOs. South Africa’s representatives did intervene and insist that all lion range states be allowed to participate in the review of the lion’s listing. Namibia then intervened, offered, and was accepted as the co-chair of the review group. That is the best that could be done.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are The “periodic review” of the listing status of a species is to ensure it is properly listed. In the case of the African lion it certainly will not lead to it being de-listed from Appendix II as all wild cats of the world are on Appendix II. The review will either show that it should remain on Appendix II or lead to a Committee recommendation and ultimate proposal to uplist African lion to Appendix I. This will be yet another country-by-country review of the status of the African lion, but this one under the auspices of Kenya. Who trusts Kenya? It is not clear what the USF&WS was thinking, but it is clear what the SSN intends to get from its mail campaign that Kenya head the review: an uplisting to Appendix I. A lot of time and energy will have to be put into production of reports on a nation-by-nation basis. Philippe Chardonnet of IGF and Conservation Force will no doubt play a leading role if Kenya permits. Even though it is more work and expense, we are much better prepared than a few years ago due to the regional workshops, surveys and growing number of national management plans. In fact, this is our opportunity to show all the work we have been doing. The wildcard is whether Namibia’s co-chairmanship can provide true balance.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are The African lion was also on the list of species for possible review of its trade as being significant and warranting a demonstration from all exporting countries that their trade was not excessive. Perhaps because lion was to be reviewed in the Periodic Review process, the lion was not added to the significant trade review process and will not be reviewed. It may have been abusive to subject the range countries to both a significant trade review process and periodic review of the lion’s listing at the same time. There was some dispute behind closed doors whether both a significant trade review and a periodic review of the listing could be conducted at the same time. We kept circulating a longstanding Resolution that concurrent reviews were not appropriate, but there were different interpretations. The antis were satisfied with a periodic review to be conducted and reported by Kenya, so they let slide the suggestion that the sustainability of lion trade needed to be reviewed as excessive in addition to the listing status.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are Periodic Review of Mountain Lion/Puma Listing: Canada volunteered to conduct the listing status of cougar, and the United States “agreed to contribute to this review as a range state of the species (Puma concolor cougar and Puma concolor coryi).” Some cougar are on Appendix I and others are on Appendix II. Canada’s are on Appendix I, so a downlisting would facilitate trade in that subspecies population with importing countries around the world.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are The range of puma/mountain lion extends from Alaska (rare) south to Chile. It has the largest geographic range of any terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere. It was eradicated east of the Rocky Mountains, but in the western United States the population recovered and its range has extended. It has increased in western states and dispersed as far as the Midwest. The USF&WS listed the Eastern Cougar as Endangered in 1973 but in March of this year completed a five-year review that confirmed the East’s mountain lions to officially be extinct. That status review can be downloaded from http://www.fws.gov/northeast/ECougar. The IUCN treats the remaining puma/cougar as of “Least Concern.”
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are Bobcat Maintained as Listed on Appendix II: The USF&WS reported on its completed review of the listing of the bobcat. The Committee accepted the USF&WS report that the Periodic Review of the listing demonstrated that the bobcat should be maintained on Appendix II as a look-alike species. Though the research demonstrated the biological status was secure, it resembles an endangered lynx in Europe, i.e. a lookalike. That is the end of the effort of the States, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and cooperating USF&WS to downlist America’s bobcat at this point in time. The US proposal to de-list the bobcat over the past few Conferences has failed due to opposition from Mexico and the European Union. Over time, the bureaucratic CITES paperwork from the listing costs American sportsmen who fund the state wildlife and fisheries departments many millions of dollars.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are Jaguar Maintained as Listed: Mexico’s report on the Periodic Review of the listing of all jaguar concluding that the jaguar should remain on Appendix I was accepted by the Committee. Uruguay intervened in disagreement with Mexico’s reported conclusion that jaguar were currently threatened by hunting for the fur trade. Uruguay pointed out that conflict with cattle farming was the threat today to jaguar, and the sale of fur was secondary. Nonetheless, the Committee accepted the report as presented.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are Cameroon and Mozambique Hippo Trade of “Possible Concern”: The Committee accepted the recommendation of the Significant Trade Working Group that Cameroon and Mozambique’s hippo exports were of “possible concern” because of the level of trade and unknown status of hippo in those countries. What this means is the Secretariat of CITES will mail a questionnaire to those countries to justify their non-detriment findings for their trade and which must be answered within 90 days. This is the significant trade review process for Appendix II species, SIG. If the countries are not responsive, the suspension of trade will follow in due course. It is advisable for safari hunting interests in those two countries to see that their government authorities respond and to provide what assistance they can. The level of trade must be demonstrated to be sustainable since it has been selected for review.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are Other Matters of Interest: In the North American Regional Report, the USF&WS reported enhancing its “CITES enforcement capacity by hiring 23 new criminal investigators, expanding the ranks of its inspector workforce from 124 to 140 and training all new US Customs/Agriculture inspectors on CITES import/export requirements. (Read that as US requirements.)
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are The US also reported on its International Technical Resistance Program (ITRP). That is the program in which HSUS is provided hundreds of thousands of dollars of USAID and other funds to parade around the world with and in association with the USF&WS as an expert in an array of subjects, including “alternatives” to use, trade, and how to set sustainable quotas/make non-detriment findings for trade. Conservation Force uncovered this USF&WS collaboration with HSUS through recent Freedom of Information Act requests.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are On the more positive side, Canada reported it is “actively participating in the development of a range-wide action plan for polar bears with the polar bear range state countries (US, Russia, Greenland and Norway).” As an aside, this will bring us one step closer to importing polar bear trophies from select populations in the future under the “enhancement” section of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Readers will recall that Conservation Force has filed enhancement permits, and the USF&WS denied them, citing the need for a recovery or action plan. That is in litigation. Canada took note and is developing such a plan. Conservation Force served on several of the Working Groups. One of those new working groups that will conduct its business intersessionally is the Capacity-Building Program for science-based quota setting. We will see what added value we can contribute. All of our work is not defensive and remedial.
The Animals Committee is one of the two technical, scientific advisory committees of CITES. The other is the Plants Committee. They meet between the CoPs, which are A special thanks goes to those organizations that help provide support for Conservation Force’s professional volunteers to participate in CITES including IPHA, PHASA, GOABC, DSC, HSC, WSF, GS/OVIS, Shikar Safari Club International Foundation, and the African Safari Club of Florida. Pope & Young has just joined that list of supporters for the 2011-12 period.
