A GROUP of conservationists at a conference of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Nairobi argued vociferously
last week that too much protection can actually damage the survival prospects of
certain endangered species. They sided with the nations that are managing stocks
of endangered species effectively and want to carry out limited trade, often to
fund conservation.
At the CITES meeting, representatives of 150 nations are considering calls
for permanent bans on international trade in products such as elephant ivory,
perfumes from wild musk deer, turtle shells and shark meat. Meanwhile, out in
the corridors, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), a global organisation of
scientists, is arguing that trade bans can penalise countries that successfully
protect their wildlife. The IUCN instead favours better regulation of trade. But
its views are strongly contested by some conservation groups, such as one of the
conference sponsors, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).
CITES lists endangered species under either Appendix I, which bans all
international trade, or Appendix II, which sets up a licensing system for
controlling trade. 鈥淢any species being proposed here for Appendix I would be
better managed under Appendix II,鈥� says Simon Stuart, head of species for the
IUCN.
Advertisement
One example is the musk deer, a source of musk for perfume and medicine. Musk
costs $50 a gram, making it one of the most valuable of all natural
products and giving a dead male deer a market value of $1200. The US,
India and Nepal want to move the deer from Appendix II to Appendix I. But, says
Steven Broad, director of TRAFFIC International, which monitors wildlife trade
for the IUCN, 鈥渢he problem is actually existing illegal trade, which a trade ban
won鈥檛 touch鈥�.
鈥淲e need better trade management,鈥� agrees David Cowdrey of the World Wide
Fund for Nature, which also sponsors TRAFFIC. 鈥淏ut if trade is banned, existing
management programmes will be shut down and the trade will be driven further
underground.鈥� Other conservation groups such as the IFAW disagree, saying an
Appendix I listing would end confusion over whether seized musk was poached or
legal, and let authorities launch an all-out assault on the illegal trade.
A similar debate surrounds the Caribbean hawksbill turtle, which is judged
鈥渃ritically endangered鈥� by the IUCN and is on Appendix I. But Cuba, which runs a
well-controlled hawksbill turtle harvest鈥攍egal because it is not for
export鈥攚ould like permission to sell 500 shells a year abroad. 鈥淐uba is
about the only Caribbean country to have prevented illegal poaching,鈥� says
TRAFFIC. CITES delegates must decide whether regulated trade would encourage a
boom in poaching or encourage other Caribbean countries to nail their poachers
in the hope of being allowed to trade legally.
At root, the arguments here centre on whether wildlife endangered by hunting
is best protected by fences and trade bans or by encouraging people to view them
as economic resources that can be efficiently managed.