Blog: CITES - keeping our eye on the main goals. - Hoofdinhoud

Wildlife trafficking thrives in the dark. So it's great to see it back in the public eye: in my experience, criminal activities tend to wither away when they are pushed into broad daylight.

After the summer I'll be attending the CITES convention in Johannesburg South Africa. Wildlife trafficking will be high on the agenda. CITES - the international convention regulating trade in endangered species - is the best weapon we have in our armoury for dealing with the problem. In the run-up, it's important that we keep our eyes on the main battle - stamping out wildlife crime.

The EU Action Plan on Wildlife Trafficking is one of the strictest in the world. The EU has been since 2001 the main financial supporter of global programs against wildlife poaching and trafficking. In particular, the MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) and MIKES (Minimising the Illegal Killing of Elephants and other Endangered Species) programmes, implemented by the CITES Secretariat, received a total support of 24 million EUR covering 71 sites in Africa and Asia.

In addition, the EU invests in wildlife reserves that simply would not exist without EU money. Here are some examples; Thanks to the continuous EU support since 1992, the Odzala-Kokoua National Park (Republic of Congo) has better resisted to the poaching pressure and still supports the largest forest elephant population and of lowland gorilla in Central Africa. Many elephants were killed before EU supported the management of the park, but effective law enforcement has resulted in many of the remaining individuals moving back into the park area.

The EU is also a long-term partner for park management in Chad, in particular the Zakouma National Park supported for 25 years without interruption. Although poachers from Suam caused severe elephant slaughters in the mid 2000's, the law enforcement activities permit nowadays an increase of the most extreme Northern population of elephants.

These are just two examples of many.

I've seen the results of elephant poaching with my own eyes. When I visited Kenya back in May this year, I was shown round the Nairobi National Park by Dr Richard Leakey, the Chairman of the Kenya Wildlife Service. He showed me the many benefits of protecting wildlife and preserving biodiversity, and I saw the consequences of this illegal trade, not just for these magnificent beasts, but also for the locals affected by it. African ecosystems are there for the people and the planet - protecting them helps eradicate poverty, and it provides a sustainable livelihood for locals.

The CITES conference will publish documents showing that the vast majority of illegally trafficked ivory originates in Africa. It's a trade that depends on corruption, inadequate governance, poverty and poor enforcement, as well as demand in Asia. These are the areas where we need to focus our energies.

I don't support CITES simply because it's the "correct procedure". I am behind it because it works. When countries don't play fair, trade sanctions are imposed. This has happened in the recent past for Laos, Angola, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Thailand, after years of inaction, was threatened with trade sanctions under CITES, and a national ivory action plan duly appeared. It's made a real difference on the ground.

The system is working, but I know it can do more. And that's why I'll be trying to get these tools reinforced at the next CITES meeting. Our top priority is to push for responses which have a direct impact on poaching and trafficking. We back measures that are actionable, effective, and can be put into practice at short notice.

Africa is a complex continent, and positions are more nuanced than they appear in newspapers. The picture on the ground is complicated, as the situation varies from country to country. There are already conflicting proposals tabled on the ivory trade, as the factions begin to take shape; but my position is clear. CITES bans the international ivory trade, and CITES is working well. I'll argue for stronger tools, not different rules.

As I've always said, this is a battle we can't afford to lose. And it's a battle we will win by keeping our eyes firmly fixed on the major concerns.