You've probably already seen the following article on the news wires:
Demise of coral, salamander show impact of Web: The Internet has emerged as one of the greatest threats to rare species, fueling the illegal wildlife trade and making it easier to buy everything from live baby lions to wine made from tiger bones, conservationists and law enforcement officers said Sunday. The Web's impact was made clear at the meeting of the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. Delegates voted overwhelmingly Sunday to ban the trade of the Kaiser's spotted newt, which the World Wildlife Fund says has been devastated by the Internet trade. CONTINUED
The 20 March Economist has a related article that focuses on international agreements:
Fin Times: Ban the trade in bluefin tuna--but set a clear path to sustainable exploitation:The bluefin was supposed to have been managed by an intergovernmental body, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). But this was so stunningly bad at the job that it was dubbed the International Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna. In one recent year the scientific advice was to catch at most 15,000 tonnes of tuna. ICCAT imposed a limit of 30,000 tonnes. The actual catch was 60,000 tonnes. Little wonder the bluefin is vanishing fast.
In theory a temporary trade ban would allow stocks to rebuild themselves. But would it work? As this newspaper has occasionally pointed out before, banning trade is not normally a good idea. In the case of wildlife, a ban must meet at least four conditions. First, the species in question must be seriously threatened by international trade. (If the problem is habitat loss, domestic use or disease, a trade ban will not help.) Second, bans must be coupled with measures to reduce demand. Third, they must not undermine incentives to conserve endangered species in the wild. And lastly they must be supported by the governments and citizens where the species lives. CONTINUED (requires Economist subscription); Also, page 18 in the 20 March print edition
Hmm... I see a research topic here: the impact of the Internet on international regimes. That is, does the internet encourage/discourage inter-government agreements? In this case, consider how easy it is for individuals to circumvent treaties through Internet interaction. The Internet's speed an relative anonymity partially undermines The Economist's fourth condition, or "receive support by the citizens where the species lives."
I certainly do not condone sending flora and fauna into oblivion, but looking through the eyes of the poacher or dealer trying to make a few extra bucks, I can see the Internet's lucrative draw. As for The Economist's third point--provide incentives to conserve--a ban by itself may make national governments feel good, but it must inform the non-state actors why conservation is a good thing. And as The Economist later says, that's a hard argument to make when one person's endangered species is another's pest.
I recall reading some years ago about a program in Africa where former poachers were offered better pay to serve as game wardens (i.e. it takes a thief to catch a thief), and the system worked at the time: it took away poaching's monetary incentive (alas, I cannot source the article). Thus I think there is hope. But what about the technical aspect? Should Inter-government or Non-Government Organizations work to police the cyberspace species trade, or any number of other agreement violations? I don't have an answer for that...
-
Comments