Dr. Richard Leakey's Speech at CITES
7/9/97
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Headline: Dr. Richard Leakey's Speech at CITES
Source: Dr. Shirley McGreal, Chairwoman
International Primate Protection League, POB 766 Summerville SC 29484 USA
Phone: 803-871-2280 Fax: 803-871-7988 E-mail: ippl@awod.com
Web page (revised January 1997): http://www.sims.net/organizations/ippl/
Date: 7/9/97
Dr. Richard Leakey, former head of the Kenya Wildlife Service, flew to
Harare, Zimbabwe, to address the Species Survival Network's reception (held
on 12 June) at the 1997 CITES conference. Although many reporters attended
the reception, the Zimbabwe government-controlled press never made a single
mention of Dr. Leakey's visit, presumably because he did not sing "the
Zimbabwe Song." The text of Dr. Leakey's speech (made from an occasionally
unclear transcript) follows. I take responsibility for any errors!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I confess that I find the very concept of conservation to be ambiguous at
best and in the era of political correctness, one hears all kinds of
interpretations of what a 'good' conservation program should be about. Does
it follow that good conservation practice will prevent species extinctions?
Probably not. I don't know what is right or good but I do think that as we
approach the end of this century we must be increasingly mindful of the
consequences that result from extinctions.
Species survival is obviously the focus for many of us gathered here this
evening and I hope that it is also an important concern for some of the
other participants in CITES meeting who are not here this evening.
Most of you know as well as I do that biologists and conservationists are
operating from a position of ignorance: we don't actually know how many
species there really are on the planet, let alone on the African or any
other continent. The rate of extinctions is also unknown. Scientists suggest
that there are somewhere between 10 and 100 million species on the planet.
Human activities are causing between 10,000 and 40,000 species to become
extinct each year. Since life first appeared, apparently more than 99% of
species have become extinct. Our role in this extraordinary saga has been
minuscule and so far it is not statistically significant. Most of these
losses are well before we came on the scene and we probably would not have
appeared at all if extinctions had not opened up some ecological
opportunities for our ancestors.
It is the acceleration of species loss through human activities today that
is significant and unless the present trend is reversed, the planet could
lose approximately 55% of today's species over the next 50 to 100 years.
Such rapid catastrophic losses to biodiversity have happened before, and
these catastrophes have always had far reaching consequences for the
surviving species.
Given the inevitability of extinctions, and bearing in mind that most of
these losses will come about as a consequence of activities beyond the
control of individual nations or their conventions, should we really be
concerned about the loss of a few species that results from international
trade? Will the world any worse off if there are no longer pangolins, brown
hyenas or pandas?
The Europeans don't seem to have suffered from the loss of the woolly
rhinoceros and how many American's even remember the giant sloth that
slipped into extinction some ten thousand years ago?
Will Africans miss the elephant or the rhino if these too disappear? Is the
elephant any more important than an orchid that grows near tropical
wetlands? What about the extinction of hundreds and thousands of species
that we humans have not yet even discovered? Does it matter if they become
extinct before we even know that they exist?
I think it does, and I am sure many of you do too, but there are a good
number of people on our planet for whom the idea of conservation is quite
irrelevant and our rhetoric is entirely empty of practical meaning to their
lives. This is perhaps the greatest challenge.
The increasingly popular and politically correct slogans such as community
wildlife, parks beyond parks, sustainable utilization and "If it pays it
stays" are just as irrelevant to these same people, the masses. The vast
majority of our species now live where all but they and a few
human-dependent species remain. The rest have gone and gone for ever. The
threat to habitat and to communities of wild species is actually from a
relatively small proportion of the total human population, be it considered
globally or at the local level. Notwithstanding this, the consumptive
trends are encouraging this small element to decimate natural habitats to
produce the needs or perceived needs of the growing markets.
Conservation is a responsibility of leaders. Those of us who can afford to
make policy, do so, on behalf of these who cannot. We do this in all realms
of human affairs: public health, education taxation and so forth. Many
actions of responsible government are not necessarily popular with the
people but through civic education and other means, people do learn to
accept regulation of their lives and activities in some form. Popularity is
not the aim in much of public policy - the public good is - although I have
to admit that this is easier to talk about than to achieve.
Nonetheless, I personally believe that in the area of species protection, we
should concern ourselves with what is right as opposed to what may be
easier, or popular in the short term. We need, as leaders, to lead and to be
accountable for our leadership.
It is bogus to believe that you can 'buy' support over the long term.
Revenue sharing, decision sharing and similar well intended tactics will not
be sustainable in those parts of the world where the general standard of
living is declining and where there is a frightening increment to the cost
of meeting basic human needs. The numbers of people on the planet are
increasing, their needs are increasing, their expectations are increasing.
The resource that we are concerned with , wildlife or nature has finite
limits. The estate available to wild species is in fact constantly
decreasing under pressure from the other human activities and these are
unstoppable.
CITES is an extremely important international organ and I do not have any
regard for those who are claiming that it is or has been a protectionist
club of western interests. The original idea was to establish an
international regulatory organ that would make certain that international
trade did not threaten the survival of species. This is quite different from
an organisation that seeks to ensure that concerns for species survival
should not endanger international trade! I fear that over the past decade
there has been an attempt by some to change the mission of the organisation.
This must be resisted and we should not be afraid to express ourselves on
the importance of species survival. I do not feel guilty or uncomfortable
when I am accused of being 'on the side of wildlife'; I care and so do
millions of other people in every part of the world. We must be heard, we
must stand tall and remember that a species lost is lost for all time.
In the past few years I have changed the focus of my own activities and I
am, as some of you perhaps have heard, now active in Kenya in the
pro-democracy movement.
Kenyans, like other people in other countries, want to be fairly governed:
they want accountability, justice and opportunity to better their own lives.
The opponents of the movement for greater democracy, usually powerful
incumbent government leaders who have no popular mandate, claim that
democracy is a 'western' or foreign concept.
They are wrong: fairness and justice, along with the rights of a people to
question and change their leaders, were the norm in pre-colonial African
nation states. These are foundations of democracy and they are universal.
I raise this because I am well aware that there are some vocal critics of
CITES and other conservation groups who claim that attempting to protect and
ensure survival of species is somehow neo-colonialist, foreign or worse
still, western. The term "bunny huggers" has been used to describe some of
us who are concerned about the fate of wild species. To [not clear on
transcript but appears to be "to belittle our"] noble cause is the practice
of shallow, insecure [not clear, appears to read "incompetents"], be it in
the realm of wildlife or liberty and justice.
May I remind these same critics that before western or specifically
Caucasian penetration of Africa or the Americas, conservation was widely
practiced; species were not endangered and there was a tolerable balance
between human populations and their environs. It went wrong when 'western
influences' reached these continents.
Preserving pasture, forests and species was very much a part of the culture
and practice of many traditional societies. It is certainly not 'western' or
'European' to appreciate nature; it is a human value that is expressed world
wide.
This human value is of course conditioned by circumstances and a poor and
hungry person with no prospects for a better life will see a patch of
beautiful wilderness very differently from a well fed, affluent person who
has the use of a 4 wheel drive vehicle to escape the rigours and routines of
an affluent life.
In large measure attitudes will go along with real life issues and this must
not be forgotten when we consider the claims and counter-claims by those who
are charged with looking after wildlife, and who insist that they know what
the stake-holders wants. I am not sure that these so-called stake holders
are in fact known or recognised and I am certain they are seldom consulted.
I also believe that it is important to examine the quite ridiculous notion
that is increasingly put about that everything is best seen as part of a
complex economic equation. We are encouraged to believe that unless
something can be given a dollar value, it is of little relevance to the
modern age and the march towards Utopia.
I disagree and I am reminded of a recent editorial comment in the New
Scientist where the observation was made that nature, like liberty, has no
price tag. In the context of a CITIES meeting, I think it would be right to
remind the delegates that species which are the stuff of nature are
priceless, as are human dignity and freedom. Government and inter
government policies and actions should be based firmly on this premise which
is not negotiable.
It is in this regard that I would like to pay particular tribute to the Non
Governmental Organization (NGO) movement. At a conference of this kind, the
official 'representatives of government' prefer to have their debates in
camera without the irritation of either the press or the NGO's. It is often
claimed that the NGO's have no mandate and from this we are expected to
believe that the official delegations do. For some nations this is possibly
true but for a good many others it is certainly not.
I would be surprised if a number of NGO's did not in fact have a far better
grasp of what the 'people' want than many of the well-paid, allowance
living, government representatives who are here for this CITES meeting. I
was at a CITES meeting some years ago on the government or official side and
believe me, the discussions would have been a great deal better if the NGO's
could have participated rather than simply being kept at the back of the
room or outside altogether. One of the reasons that I accepted the
invitation to speak here tonight was so that I could pay tribute to the
NGO's and their role in bringing pressure on policy makers. Pressure must be
maintained.
Before concluding these brief remarks, let me succumb to a temptation that I
should probably resist: I want to talk about elephants and the issue of a
split-listing or down listing. I am well aware that we are guests in
Zimbabwe and that my remarks may not please some. Anyway I did not leave my
mother's womb to please people.
I am entirely opposed to any resumption of any international trade in ivory
now or at any time that can be presently predicted. The principle of an
ivory trade I accept: the practice of the trade under present circumstances
in both producer and consumer countries is untenable.
It is difficult to admit, especially if you are a government employee or
political representative that your own government has no prospect of being
able to successfully supervise or police the trade in ivory. In spite of
denials, we all know that this is the truth. I know of no country, where the
integrity of the public service and the transparency of goverance would give
the necessary guarantees that illegal trading would not flourish if legal
trade were resumed at this time.
We have all read and heard of the problems, not only here in Africa but also
in the far east. Japanese traders have openly admitted that it is not
difficult to manipulate the system even in Japan and there are no guarantees
that all imported ivory will be from legal stocks.
The critics of the Appendix I listing have any number of arguments and I do
not wish to go over them all tonight.
There are, however, some things that I must say. The level of poaching did
decline following the ban: it may not have stopped but it was certainly a
)massive improvement. Illegal trade did continue but the volume was
substantially down and I believe most of the illegal movements were from
those countries that now want to lift the ban.
The downlisting proponents claim that Africa's elephant population was not
in fact as precarious as had been thought; if this is true and it may well
be, lets be glad that the error was on the 'right' side of the account! As
Prince Bernhard once said at one occasion like this; where there is doubt,
let wildlife be the beneficiary.
One final point to be made before I conclude these brief musings on our
elephants is that the money to be made from trading ivory may be substantial
for individuals but its a pittance for governments. Governments are
supposedly there to serve the people and I believe that, if these
governments wanted to well serve their people, they will stand firm and
ensure that the ivory trade remains banned indefinitely.
There are other elephant problems and issues: sport hunting and problem
animal control, along with the necessity of managing elephant populations.
These are not matters to be addressed by CITES and I will therefore, not
dwell on them now. Instead I will tell you a brief elephant anecdote which
will perhaps underline the importance that I attach to the evolution of a
sensible and sensitive elephant management policy:
[not on my transcript but, as best I recall the anecdote, Dr. Leakey told
the story of one of Joyce Poole's study elephants who allowed Joyce to rub
his tusk. After Joyce's 7 year absence she called on the elephant who came
up and solicited the same attention].
To conclude, I support the concept of an international regulatory body such
as CITES. It must do what no other organ of inter-government standing can
do: provide legislative protection for endangered species. It must
disregard the whines of endangered species traders and short-sighted
conservationists.
The SSN and others, including our particular hosts this evening, should
press on with their good work. You cannot win all the battles and you will
not always be popular but a good number of species, mammal, insect, reptile,
bird and fish, along with plants depend upon your efforts and on their
behalf, I both commend you all and thank you.
Richard E. Leakey
12th June, 1997
Dr. Shirley McGreal, Chairwoman
International Primate Protection League, POB 766 Summerville SC 29484 USA
Phone: 803-871-2280 Fax: 803-871-7988 E-mail: ippl@awod.com
Web page (revised January 1997): http://www.sims.net/organizations/ippl/
NOTE; THE OLD E-MAIL ADDRESS AT SC.NET IS NOT BE IN USE, PLEASE DIRECT ALL
E-MAIL TO IPPL@AWOD.COM