2 August 2016 12:27 am
Country representative to the Born Free Foundation, Manori Gunawardena said that Sri Lanka has been a signatory to CITES since 1978, thereby demonstrating a strong commitment to the protection of species endangered by international commercial trade. “Sri Lanka’s national legislation is strong on conserving listed species from exploitation and is committed to protecting its natural assets within its borders. However, while domestic legislation serves to enforce infractions locally, it does not address international trade adequately.”
“Being part of a major trade route, recent detections of wildlife contraband of both native and non-native species have come to light. The detection of the large African ivory shipment, the regular confiscation of “agar wood” (“walla patta”, a native tree), and the reported online sale of endemic Sri Lankan lizards in Europe all indicate persuasive arguments to supplement the country’s domestic legislation with the provisions of CITES, a treaty to which 182 sovereign countries are signatory. Sri Lanka has taken a proactive stance in combating the illegal trade in wildlife and at the upcoming CITES meeting has co–proposed improved protection for the African elephant, Indian pangolin, mobular ray and silky and thresher shark.”
Speaking to the , Prof. of Economics Sirimal Abeyratne said that having no legislation for an issue like this is also a weakness. “The GSP Plus concession is mainly benefiting exporters because it helps them to maintain their competitiveness. But the major concern here is that these concessions should only be used temporarily. When a country is developing and has established its export market, it shouldn’t depend on these types of concessions. Such a country should compete through quality and prices.”
Speaking to the Daily Mirror, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Wildlife secretary R.M.D.B. Meegasmulla said there was still some time remaining to get the clearance. “The Attorney General’s department has given us a clearance on this regard and we will be gazetting the legislation. We still have time till September and so far we haven’t been given a notice saying that we will be blacklisted. There were a few delays but we will recover them soon.”
Speaking to the , ex-Deputy Director of Customs, Samantha Gunasekara said that for the import or the export of any species, the CITES is not a legal permit. “We first need to have the national legislation. There are 47 countries who are on the verge of getting black-listed by the CITES due to lack of proper legislation. Exotic and aquamarine species like sea horses have been listed as protected under the CITES agreement. We have signed it as facilitation but many other countries have engaged in illegal wildlife trade although they are party to the convention. If Sri Lanka gets blacklisted, it will affect our economy and the GSP Plus scheme will be removed from the country.”
The CITES Secretariat when contacted, said “The CITES management authority in Sri Lanka, the Department of Wildlife has to date not communicated progress on national legislation to the Secretariat.”
Stressing further on this regard, Mr. Gunawardena said that CITES is a trade convention and that it provides a way for trade. “Back in 1995 this convention downgraded the protected status of corals to Appendix 2. But in the FFPO all corals are a totally protected species and therefore we were able to circumvent any adverse situation. On the other hand, certain countries have openly violated the CITES convention when it comes to the illegal trade of ivory for example, but the CITES has not taken any action against them. Therefore we can be a party to the CITES but they can’t do anything detrimental to our position. What should be done at the moment is that someone should show the CITES that we are equipped with the proper legislation. But on the other hand there are certain species that should be protected under the CITES which we have failed to do. For example marine organisms like the manta ray and sea horse which comes under the purview of the Fisheries ministry should be protected. The Aquatic Resources Department is quite slow and they should gear themselves to work more effectively, when it comes to priorities and enacting legislations.”