Welcome to Goallover.org
Goallover.org is a not for profit site dedicated to encouraging internet users to make regular and more varied donations to charities. It takes less than 5 minutes to decide which of our partners to support, so we hope you pick one, click through, and sign up today.
- SPONSOR A CHILD - AFRICA - CHOICE OF 42 COUNTRIES / MINIMUM SPONSORSHIP - £20 A MONTH... More →
- SPONSOR A CHILD - AMERICAS - CHOICE OF 21 COUNTRIES / MINIMUM SPONSORSHIP - £20 A MONTH... More →
- SPONSOR A CHILD - ASIA - CHOICE OF 26 COUNTRIES / MINIMUM SPONSORSHIP - £20 A MONTH... More →
- SPONSOR A CHILD IN INDIA - CHOICE OF 32 INDIAN CITIES / MINIMUM SPONSORSHIP - £20 A MONTH... More →
- SPONSOR A CHILD IN CHINA - CHOICE OF 9 CHINESE PROVINCES / MINIMUM SPONSORSHIP - £20 A MONTH... More →
- SPONSOR AN ORPHAN IN HAITI - SOS Children's Villages is providing food, water and shelter for earthquake orphans... More →
CHARITY BLOG
POLAR BEAR PROPOSAL REJECTED
Proposal to move polar bears to highest CITES protection fails
A few hours before a proposal to move bluefin tuna to CITES appendix I was rejected, a similar proposal for polar bears was also rejected.
The proposal was rejected by a majority of Governments, led by Canada, with 62 votes against, 48 in favour and 11 abstentions.
The majority of the parties at CITES rejected the proposal over concerns it would hurt indigenous economies and that trade practices do not pose a significant threat to the animals.
The US position emphasised that any additional threats including even a relatively small commercial trade in polar bears adds additional pressure to an already stressed population.
Jane Lyder, Head of US CITES delegation explained that they were aware that there was not an immediate threat to polar bears, but they believe a precautionary approach was appropriate:
“The US knows knows about the implication the ban would have on the communities, however we make a choice.”
Canada, along with Norway and Greenland, led the opposition to the U.S. proposal. The Canada delegation explained the reasoning behind their rejection:
“Trade is minimal and the hunting done by indigenous communities is critical to their economies. Only two-percent of Canadian polar bears are internationally traded and the country strictly manages the commerce.”
“There is no doubt that action must continue to ensure the conservation of polar bears. Canada’s goal is long term survival of polar bears. But Canada does not think the proposal is supported by facts.”
Norway cited the polar bear lacking any biological criteria to be listed in Appendix I and described the proposal as being “premature.”
Greenland’s delegation said that there was no ongoing decline in Polar Bear population which was many folds higher than 5,000.
An opinion that many of the countries in opposition to the proposal shared was that conservation measures should be handled by local conservation groups rather than CITES.
This line of argument has been used in all of the three major votes so far, with both shark and tuna proposals rejected on the basis that the focus should be placed on improving local conservation organisations rather than imposing a sweeping global ban on trade.
