Threatened species lose to trade.

Before leaving for the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, I wondered what the endangered animals and plants whose survival was being debated would say if they could speak.

As one who presumes to work for wildlife, I often feel them -- whales, trees, lizards, turtles, bears and elephants -- peering over my shoulder to see if I am holding true to their concerns. But never before have I felt the pressure of this scrutiny as much as during those 14 days in June, when the survival or destruction of millions of creatures and millions of acres of critical habitat was decided by a small group of human beings gathered in one African city.

Fighting jet lag and pummeled by the sheer volume and complexity of the issues being discussed, the global representatives of six billion humans sat down to debate whether the world's 500,000 remaining African elephants (the most optimistic tally) was too many.

The very idea of a Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species gives me the willies. Why should there be any trade at all in endangered species? Because, of course, it makes money.

CITES is where the worlds of money and wild things collide; where suppliers, traders and consumers encourage ever-increasing "use" of animal "resources," and where the few environmentalists in attendance try to shore up crumbling protections. Every two-and-a-half years, dramatically contrary approaches to life on Earth come together at these meetings and slug it out. Policies are adopted. Forests stand or fall. Elephants live or are butchered for their tusks.

The Survival Debate

The world we have inherited is graced with a seemingly infinite variety of life: mammals that fly, birds of impossible color, whales that sing and trees that offer oxygen and medicines. But as our global human population pushes 6 billion and demands even more space and sustenance, how do we protect the most threatened plants and animals?

Some say that endangered species must "pay their own way" to justify their preservation. Some hold that all forms of life are resources and that the task is to create a way for people to use them "sustainably." Others believe that we should manage our affairs in such a way that the allowable trade in endangered species equals zero.

CITES tries to strike a balance, offering three levels of protection. Appendix I bans all international trade except for hunting trophies and live "specimens" "not [used primarily] for commercial purposes." Appendix II allows some trade within specified limits. Appendix III leaves the protection to "range states" where the endangered plant or animal is found.

Besides the 129 countries represented in CITES, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) are allowed to attend and (occasionally) speak at conference sessions. Hundreds of proposals come up for voting. Many delegates change their minds during the conference based on their conversations with NGOs. At the Harare meeting, observers representing conservation and animal organizations were far outnumbered by big game hunters, aboriginal whalers, "sustainable use" advocates and wildlife traffickers, but wildlife advocates stumped for a wide variety of threatened fauna and flora.

For two weeks, CITES gave a thumbs up or down on proposal after proposal to either list, uplist or downlist dozens of threatened species that are traded.

Every morning, NGOs working for conservation and animal rights groups met under a new umbrella coalition, the Species Survival Network, to plan the day's strategy. Bleary-eyed and gripping coffee cups, activists from all over the world reviewed the successes and failures of the previous day and prepared for the major battles to come.

AWI's Adam Roberts briefed everyone on the location of the day's pivotal debates on bears, whales, mahogany, elephants, turtles or other emergencies-of-the-moment and on which delegates appeared to be good candidates for lobbying. Then everyone fanned out to buttonhole conferees, prepare statements or find breakfast.

Whales on the Auction Block

One morning during the first week of the CITES gathering, I was headed back to the convention center through thick traffic. The smog over the western horizon was so black it looked like an approaching thunderstorm -- and it quickly became an apt metaphor for the storms brewing inside the convention center.

Some of the earliest battles involved Japan's proposal to circumvent the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling and establish a system to trade in whale meat. Whale advocates mobilized to make sure the delegates understood the enormity of this proposal. Japan requested a secret vote, violating expectations that the convention's proceedings would be "transparent." The vote failed.

Another victory followed. Three different populations of Minke whales, one species of Brydes whales, and the California gray whales were proposed for downlisting, which would permit nations to trade their meat on the international market. Whale advocates strategized, lobbied and coaxed. We gave out ballpoint pens with pictures of whales and "Appendix I" emblazoned across the side. In the end, the whales won.

Namibia proposed a seemingly insignificant change in Appendix I's phrase "primarily for commercial purposes" that would have allowed governments to sell stockpiles of endangered animal or plant parts -- or "harvests" of so-called "nuisance animals" -- without the sale being considered commercial. Since nuisance animals can include anything from elephants in Africa to cockatoos in Central America, many of us felt that such a change would destroy any slim protection currently offered by CITES. This proposal, thankfully, was also defeated.

As the first week wore on, the tenor of debate became more acrimonious. CITES is a battleground of ideas and shifting attitudes. Increasingly, the uplisting of any plant or animal was portrayed by smaller and poorer countries as an attempt to keep them from utilizing their "natural resources." The subject of human overpopulation was avoided even by conservation groups (who wanted to avoid making false choices between human welfare and animal survival). The radical concept that animals are not resources but independent, intelligent and self-aware tribes to be respected and defended was barely a glimmer on the horizon.

The dissolution of the US delegation to CITES was a bitter disappointment. AWI's Roberts orchestrated the battle for uplisting Eurasian bears but had the rug pulled out from under him by the lack of US resolve. Similarly, US proposals to increase protection for 12 species of map turtles and the alligator snapping turtle were watered down and defeated, or withdrawn altogether. In all of these cases, intense pressure from state fish and wildlife agencies (which wanted protection left up to individual states) weakened the US position.

The Great Elephant Showdown

Tuesday and Wednesday of the second week saw the great elephant showdown. When the smoke finally cleared, delegates had passed a "compromise" measure that effectively reduced protection for the elephants of three African nations -- Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe -- from Appendiux I CITES protection to Appendix II coverage.

The tragic vote opens the door for the resumption of ivory trade -- and by extension, elephant poaching -- which previously had been banned. Admittedly, tough conditions must be met by the three nations before they can begin selling ivory (and it only can be sold to Japan), but the vote was a clear defeat for elephants.

Initially, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe each put forward pro-ivory trading proposals that failed to secure enough support to even reach a vote, so South Africa introduced a pro-trade proposal that was slightly more palatable. Fortunately, it failed to garner the two-thirds majority required for passage -- by a mere three votes.

Advocates of the ban on ivory trade breathed enormous sighs of relief. I saw Israel delegate and wildlife champion Bill Clark slump in his chair in a gesture of relief and exhaustion. We figured that the more extreme proposals from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe surely would lose and that would be the end of it. Perhaps it was naive to assume, given the money riding on the decisions, that we would see a fair fight in Harare.

Then, in a surprisingly partisan ruling, Canadian committee chair David Brackett stopped the debate and ordered the formation of a working group to be led by strongly pro-"use" Norway. The group included the three African states wanting elephant downlisting, along with Japan and the European Union. On Wednesday this working group produced a consensus document almost identical to the failed South African amendment. It was this "compromise" that sailed right through, easily gaining two-thirds of the votes.

Jubilant parks employees jumped to their feet, dancing and hugging. A man stood in the upper balcony and, without a murmur of interruption from the chairman, sang out Zimbabwe's long national anthem in a ringing baritone.

As the nationalistic fervor continued, the smattering of animal advocates in the hall -- many of whom had worked hard for years to oppose downlisting -- looked hollow, downcast, defeated. They were imagining the wave of blood that would follow in the wake of this ruling.

The concerns of the African countries still under siege from well-armed poachers had been ignored, as were the worries of activists from India and Bangladesh, who already had seen an upsurge in the killing of Indian elephants in anticipation of the possible downlisting.

Buying Votes and Selling Out

Corruption thrived at the CITES conference. Japan bought the votes of a whole block of Caribbean countries -- St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Antigua, Dominica and Trinidad-Tobago.

Taking advantage of the decline of US foreign aid to this region, Japan has responded with a liberal purse (in exchange for a little help in the international arena). Lunchtime saw a US representative holding court in the Harare Sheraton's Japanese restaurant, surrounded by the Caribbean aid recipients to whom he funnels money from Tokyo.

International trade in wildlife and drugs have become increasingly intertwined, making for odd bedfellows. The enormously powerful Russian Mafia was said to be in attendance, interested in, among other things, the unrestricted flow of caviar. (The uplisting of sturgeon products was amended to permit a generous allowance for "personal consumption.") Proposals to restrict trade in wild birds failed, perhaps due, in part, to the popularity of packing cocaine inside dead birds in shipping cages.

The pervasive stench of corruption filled the atmosphere of the conference. Suspicions intensified when conference-goers discovered that the US delegation had brought in an electronics expert to sweep the convention center for eavesdropping devices. He reportedly found bugs everywhere, including on phones and computers rented by the Species Survival Network. Word had it that the US delegation traveled to the US embassy whenever they wanted a secure phone line.

After the vote that downlisted the African elephants, committees zoomed through dozens of life-or-death proposals with little debate. Even though it was strongly supported by both the major importer (the US) and the major exporter (Bolivia), a proposal to increase protection of bigleaf mahogany was voted down, defeated by timber interests, at the third CITES meeting in a row. Attempts to uplist sawfishes, mantella frogs, timber rattlesnakes, Kara Tau argalis (large, wild sheep of Asia), several species of parakeets, lorikeets and cockatoos also failed. Likewise, restrictions were decreased on the export of leopard trophies and skins, circus animals, tree kangaroos, Nile crocodiles, collared peccary (a piglike mammal) and the pearly mussel.

A Few, Precious Victories

In the final blitz, we did eke out a few victories. A proposal from Venezuela to establish a quota for exporting jaguars failed, as did proposals to allow the sale of white rhinoceros horns from South Africa and renewed trade in hawksbill sea turtles from Cuba. In the final tally of the 105 issues on which the Species Survival Network concentrated, 55 won and 41 lost, with no change on the remainder. Technically, it was a victory, but it didn't feel like one.

Flying over burnt brown land from Zimbabwe to South Africa, I reflected how "sustainable use" became the mantra of the CITES conference. If we are to be a successful voice for the wild ones, we need to clarify what that means. Encouraging the marketing of endangered plants and animals, however sustainably, just invites plunder -- benefiting few but the plunderer.

It would be lovely to be able to ignore CITES, since, simply by attending, we are forced to speak in the resource-use language of those that profit from killing wildlife. But CITES is the place where the most precious of the world's diversity is put on the auction block, and we -- like it or not -- are the generation on watch.

To choose to ignore CITES would be tantamount to the abolitionists shunning the Savannah slave auctions of 150 years ago. In the battle of ideas, we need to think clearly how best to stop the commoditization of the wild. And we need to emphasize that our global choice is not animals vs. people, but greed vs. community.

Ben White, a veteran animal rights activist, has fought to save harp seals in Canada, whales in Iceland and dolphins around the world. He is the Animal Welfare Institute's marine mammal project coordinator.