The dust having finally settled following the first ever World Social Forum in the Arab world, which took place at El Manar University in Tunis from March 26-30, we must ask ourselves some tough questions about the future of the Forum.

The event was highly anticipated, with many activists from a variety of social movements being drawn to and intrigued by post-revolution Tunisia, and procedures got underway on the 26th with a march through streets that just over two years ago bore witness to the start of the “Arab Spring.” The excitement on the streets was palpable, but it was immediately confined as the Forum took up its three day residence in the university campus.

Tunisian activists complained bitterly about the tight control of the space by the Tunisian government. As a result, many did not participate in the Forum. Graffiti on banners welcoming the Forum to Tunis displayed the mood: many are frustrated with the Forum for taking corporate sponsorship as well as for charging registration fees. And while the Forum was further criticised for lacking voices from Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the university was buzzing with delegations from across the Middle East and North Africa who seemed to take advantage of the opportunity to have face to face meetings en masse to cross-pollinate strategies for their respective struggles.

Meanwhile in another first for the Forum, environmental justice activists gathered in the “Climate Space,” sadly isolated from other activities. And like the Forum itself, the “Climate Space” came under criticism for exclusivity and a lack of transparency. Although there were climate change related presentations and events that were self-organised outside of the official “Climate Space,” it was not clear what the relationship was between the them and the “Space.” I for one have little patience for the fragmentary and ego-driven politics of the Old Left, so will spare you the details and take away only the positive outcomes of the climate activities, branded or otherwise.

One such ray of resistance was Tunisian anti-fracking groups meeting each other and swapping notes with the already established anti-fracking groups of North America and Europe. Another was general agreement that stopping the extraction and export of Albertan Tar Sands must be a priority. When the climate “convergence” took place on the penultimate day a clear desire to strengthen existing networks and links to other movements, particularly those fighting the WTO, emerged.

Rethinking strategic priorities also stood out as a major point of focus. Yet holding together a widely disparate set of approaches seems as daunting as it does necessary: even though we know the grave consequences of 1°Celsius warming, and we have the alternatives, we squander precious time and energy on petty in-fighting. Though this is true across all social movements, a prime example in the climate “movement” is the debate over whether or not the UN climate negotiations—the UNFCCC—are a waste of time, a dead space. Having studied the UNFCCC for a couple of years, I feel adequately aware of its problems, and incapable of defending it in and of itself. But I couldn’t say that the fight some organisations are waging within it is futile, any more than I could say the World Social Forum should be abandoned.

Clearly there is a need for some self-reflection, for some re-evaluation of strategies. For the climate movement that means figuring out a way to let different efforts be complimentary and their effects be compounding. And while new horizontal (to varying degrees) “movements” such as Occupy, Idle No More, the Indignados, and the “Arab Spring” seem glamorous and romantic to organisers of the Forum, they must be careful with attempts to incorporate that energy.

It seems like a desperate attempt to be relevant to speak the rhetoric of the 99% when the signs on the streets accuse the Forum of selling out. Yet it seems equally clear to me, though perhaps I am young and naïve, that social movements need a World Social Forum that works now more than ever. All of us—not just the organisers—should reflect on how to make that happen.

What are people doing here, anyway?

Day 2 of CITES COP 16 was *eventful*. I’m going to try to make more targeted posts from now on, and I got a great idea for one this morning when I was chatting with one of my friends from the USA, who had some questions for me:

Friend: “Are delegates deciding what to bring back to their countries in these meetings?”

Me: “What do you mean?”

Friend: “As in, countries cannot officially pass policies there, right? So they discuss with other countries what needs to be done nationally, and then take it back to their own governments.”

Me: “Oh, yeah they can.”

This is a good question. It’s an implementation question. And maybe some of the nuances of CITES aren’t clear, or aren’t talked about as much as some of the bigger conservation implications. But I love the technical aspects of this Convention! So here we go:

As with any discussion about CITES, there are a few things to keep in mind:

1. CITES deals with international trade primarily through implementation of the 3 Appendices

2. It does not regulate the taking (a.k.a hunting, killing, poaching, harvesting, etc.) of wildlife.

3. It does not have any sway over domestic trade–trade within a country.

What actually happens at these COPs? What kinds of decisions are being made?

One of the major things that happens at a COP (the thing that gets the most press and has the most *oomph*) is that Parties decide where species should be listed on the three Appendices. To summarize an earlier post, this determines if an import permit, or an import and export permit, must be issued by a scientific authority in order to move an organism or parts of an organism across international borders. Appendix I is the most strict (requiring an import and an export permit, and generally not for commercial trade of any kind), and Appendix III is the least–containing species that are listed voluntarily by a country, and require a certificate of origin and export permits from the countries that have listed them.

Nations are required to pass national legislation that will enforce the Convention. So when a species is added to or moved in the Appendices, a country should already have the framework to enforce these changes. Not all of them do–which is something that the United States is concerned about. You can read more about US priorities at COP 16 here: http://www.fws.gov/international/cites/cop16/top-priorities.html. Some NGOs are proposing sanctions with countries that aren’t following regulations regarding ivory trade that have been approved through CITES.

In the Unites States, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is the permitting agency that decides whether to grant permits for species listed under CITES, and is responsible for enforcing that the Convention is followed through the Endangered Species Act, whichs provide the legislative framework that makes following CITES legally binding at the national level. The Lacey Act allows the United States to take enforcement action against individuals who are acting in violation of national or international laws.

At the COP, Parties review proposals to add, remove, or change how a species is listed in Appendices I and II. The Parties can come to a consensus about approving or rejecting a species listing proposal, and if a consensus is not reached, a 2/3 majority vote is required. Once a change to the Appendices is made, member Parties are required to enforce this change, normally within a 90 day window.

So to summarize, if a Party already has the legal framework in place to enforce CITES, a decision on an Appendix listing made at the COP is not reworked at the national level. Many nations lack this implementation framework, and capacity-building in this context is one of the challenges that CITES is trying to work on.

Countries may choose to take a reservation against a listing proposal within 90 days of the adoption of an amendment. This is unusual, however. You can see a list of reservations that member Parties have taken here: http://www.cites.org/eng/app/reserve.php

I hope that wasn’t too dry, and clarifies a bit of what’s going on here!

Photo Source

The opening ceremony was quite a spectacle. To summarize very briefly and quite paraphrased:

Prince William: “We can reverse these trends. We can make a difference” (via video chat)

Oystein Stokersen (Chair of CITES Standing Committee): “Must involve communities dependent on resources being managed in a sustainable manner”

Achim Steiner (UNEP Executive Director): “It is easy to remain in the asipiration and to depend on others to do things that we cannot”

John Scanlon (CITES Secretary-General): 3 new Parties to CITES since the last COP: Bahrain, Maldives, and Lebonese Republic = 178 total. “CITES as a model–growing participation and media interest in Committees.” “Illegal trade has reached a scale that poses immediate risk, involves organized crime and sometimes militia. Criminal activity poses a threat to the stability and economies of countries, loss of their cultural heritage, and undermines law.”

Yingluck Shinawatra (Prime Minister of Thailand): “Elephants are very important for Thai cultures.” “In the past, Kings have used elephants to defend independence.” “It is natural to protect elephants–we must protect all forms of life and their natural habitats. Elephants also have feeling and emotion.”

“The Thai government has… 1) enhanced intelligence and customs cooperation with foreign countries 2) will limit supply of ivory products to only those from domestic elephants 3) will amend national legislation to end ivory trade and put it in line with international norms 4) will protect elephants including live domestic elephants in Thailand and those from Africa”

Followed by a very symbolic and modern animation/music/dance collaborative.

This morning, the European Union held a press conference to discuss the marine proposals to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES)–recommendations to list a number of shark species and manta rays under Appendix II.

What is CITES? The primary goal of CITES is to regulate international wildlife trade of species and to protect them against over-exploitation for the purposes of future aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational, and economic use. Currently there are 178 Parties to CITES.

CITES is implemented by 3 Appendices which each grant certain trade restrictions upon the species listed therein. That’s the cut and dry of it, but CITES touches on other things like sustainable use, species trade and conservation plans, and is interested in climate change, electronic permitting, and many other things.

An Appendix II listing for a species would mean that a permit from a scientific authority from the country of export is necessary before it can legally enter international trade. This includes live animals, parts of animals, seeds, wood, derivatives–skin, teeth, oil, meat, you get the picture.

The proposed shark species are the scalloped, great, and smooth hammerheads, ocean whitetips, and porbeagles. Scalloped hammerheads are overfished because their fins are used in soups. The other two types of hammerheads are look-alike species, and protecting them helps to protect the scalloped hammerheads. Porbeagle sharks are in decline because of a demand for their meat. Manta rays have bony plates which are used for medicine in some regions.

The press conference stressed the beneficial relationships between CITES, which deals with international trade, and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). RFMOs help regulate sustainable harvesting. They apply only to members of the organizations, and can be difficult to enforce. However, they work at a more local level than CITES and are an important part of conservation of threatened marine species.

One of the major arguments against these proposals is that parts (i.e. shark fins) cannot be identified to the species level. This does not seem to be true, as many graphic aids are available online, and numerous workshops are occuring here at the COP to assist with this identification.

More capacity building is definitely needed to address the marine issues affecting these species in their entirety, but a listing on Appendix II is a good place to start.

Photo source

Follow us here as well as on facebook and twitter for information on the negotiations on the international trade in endangered species!

Parties are coming together to discuss proposals on issues concerning transport of musical instruments (often made from rare woods), the international trade in timber, and  proposals on the statuses of sharks, rays, polar bears, turtles and tortoises, among other things.