[ad_1]
- As the world trade treaty approaches its half-century anniversary, some scientists say it needs to be reformed to make it fit for the 21st century.
- Allowing legal, regulated trade is better than banning it for many species, they argue, citing successful case studies where local communities have engaged in sustainable trade.
- But some conservationists worry that the proposed change to CITES could mean bad news for nearby wildlife, saying it is vital to the survival of species such as elephants and tigers.
Locals and communities need more control over the global wildlife trade to keep the multibillion-pound industry afloat, according to a group of scientists re-examining the treaty that governs it. in the livestock trade. Street is approaching its fiftieth year.
The Convention on International Trade in Fauna and Flora (CITES) was signed in March 1973, although it was not implemented until 1975. In the years that followed, CITES proposed a program of 50 (a project that examines the effectiveness of the treaty), frameworks and structures. Marketing is a bit different and needs to be updated.
One of the biggest problems, according to Dr Dan Challender, from the Oxford Martin Program on Wildlife Trade, is that CITES takes proposals to ban or stop species trade without thinking how will this affect communities where wildlife is harvested.
“Most of the time, the local people are not consulted about the proposals to repair the annexes,” he told Mongabay in an interview.
Challender and his colleagues believe that it is necessary to better understand how marketing systems operate, and to analyze the size of the market for a product and the effects of restrictions on the many parties involved before the list is selected or approved.
In the international community, Challender said, banning trade is the prudent course.
“Perhaps an authorized legal transaction with the buy-in of all interested parties is the safest,” he said. Just because something is listed makes it unsafe – in the Global South, law enforcement is often not as strong as it should be, and does little to stop poachers.
Read more: Can we plan for the future without treasure hunting? (speech)
Supportive learning
The importance of local people in wildlife conservation is well known. A 2019 report on global ecosystems by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that biodiversity is rapidly declining worldwide, a migration is less harmful to areas where wildlife is kept and managed by local communities.
Many suggestions for more effective integration of citizens and citizens will be presented to member states at the 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Panama starting on November 14.
“You have to involve local people in conservation, they are very effective,” Dilys Roe, of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), told Mongabay.
Roe said there are many examples where the wildlife trade has benefited local people. Trade in the fur of the vicuña – the wild Andean camel (Vicugna vicugna) – is known as an example of a species that has survived by giving more power to social groups. Numbers have grown from less than 10,000 in the 1970s to an adult population of 350,000 today.
“The pirarucu – a large freshwater fish that lives in the Amazon – was on the verge of extinction in the late 1990s, and a change in approach to community fisheries benefited the people of border from trade,” he added. “Now they profit by selling the fish to make fine leather – cowboy boots, purses and all kinds of things.”
The CITES Secretariat has compiled several case studies of where international trade in a species or product has successfully targeted local communities, from poaching of ibex and markhor in Tajikistan to harvest anacondas in Argentina, and remove the species in it as well. River and saltwater crocodiles, reticulated pythons and queen shells.
Marketing support or recommendations?
But some wildlife conservationists say CITES at 50 is just a “pro-trade” initiative. Sue Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) said that local people’s involvement in animal harvesting and trade is not, and should not be, a matter for CITES.
Asking developing countries, in particular, to conduct a socio-economic, as well as biological, analysis of the effects of listing a species is too much to pass.
“You have to be street-ready,” he said. “Even if a species is listed on Appendix I or II it is biological and not public life. I’m not saying these aren’t important, but the criteria are biological criteria.”
Listing species such as African elephants and tigers, he said, saved them from declining mortality.
Challender said CITES at 50 was a “demonstration” not a “pro-trade” initiative. “We want to use the evidence to inform the creation of biologically effective trading systems,” he added.
Chris Shepherd, of the wildlife trade group Monitor, said it was not the event’s fault that the global wildlife trade had led to the decline of some species.
“Countries have obligations under CITES, and many of them are not fulfilling those obligations, but that does not mean they have failed, which means they are not responsible,” he said. “CITES has teeth, but if it doesn’t bite nobody will.”
Shepherd pointed out that the CITES National Legislation Project shows that 40% of all signatories to the convention have not yet adopted legislation implementing CITES, and 19 countries – more than 10% of all member states – identified as requiring priority attention.
Countries are ranked as 1, 2 or 3, with 1 representing countries that have implemented CITES legislation and 3 for those that have not.
“You’d think after 50 years, we’d all have a 1 or a maximum of 2,” Shepherd said.
Read more: Cheetahs, CITES, and illegal trade: Are consumer countries doing well? (talk), 2019
It’s always a field of thought
CITES is not the only 50 to push for greater emphasis on the value of wildlife trade to both communities and improve biodiversity outcomes.
A proposal submitted by the South African Government to this year’s COP calls for a “World Wildlife Trade Report” to be published between the COPs (done every three years), with the aim of promoting more knowledge and understanding of illegal trade and better demonstrate how “sustainable, legal and participatory wildlife trade can be a tool for protecting species and healthy ecosystems. [and] enhancing rural life”.
The scale of illegal trade, compared to the law, is not fully understood, the article says, and information about its value is considered “partial and largely speculative”.
A paper published in 2021 analyzed records kept by the World Customs Union – UN Comtrade data – to estimate the illegal trade in wildlife between $2.9 trillion and $4.4 trillion over 20 years between 1997 and 2016.
Of these, 82% are seafood, 7% furniture and 6% fashion items such as fur and leather, but many records rely on “fish” and “surf wood” without any information about various trades.
“This lack of transparency threatens biodiversity because trade-offs cannot be monitored,” the paper warns.
Banner image:Silver eared messiahs for sale in Ha Noi. Photo by James Eaton / TRAFFIC.
Related listening from Mongabay’s podcast: We talk to Ivonne Higuero, Secretary General of CITES about the challenges in implementing the rules of the treaty, online wildlife trade and the 18th conference of the parties next year. Listen here:
Read more: Trade: Macaws were kidnapped, rhino horn traders were arrested, and donkey parts were seized.
REVIEW: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to make a public comment, you can do so at the bottom of the page.
[ad_2]
Source link
