One item on the agenda was the review of alleged infractions, especially those involvin raptors of species of interest to falconers, described by the Secretariat's report as "major cases".

It appeared that most of the reported illegalities concerned falconers going abroad with their hawks for hunting purposes and neglecting to comply with the formalities. This was especially the case between Austria, Czech Republic and Hungary.

I circulated a document a document among the participants (a few hundreds) in which I criticised the Secretariat's report. I pleaded "not guilty" for falconers and called for a more flexible system for falconers traveling with their hawks for hunting purposes, suggesting some sort of a "falconry pass".

I am pleased to say that the reactions were positive, showing understanding for our problems. I was happy to encounter a general attitude of openmindedness.

The conclusion was, as set out in the official report:
 

"The Secretariat pointed out that it had contacted the International Association for Falconry and Conservation of Birds of Prey to clarify this particular issue and that in such cases the animals could be exempt under the terms of paragraph 3 of Article VII of the Convention".

I then started to dream of some sort of a "Falconry Passport". 28th January, I had a meeting in Lausanne with the former secretary general of CITES, Eugène Lapointe, who is now a consultant. We examined the possibility of facilitating frequent border crossings. The conclusions were encouraging.

30th January, I attended a reception given in Genève by the  President of the Standing Committee of CITES. This gave me the opportunity of discussing with several personalities the possibility of some sort of a falconry pass. The reactions were overall favourable. The delegate of Switzerland declared himself prepared to propose to the 10th Conference of the Parties in 1997 a resolution aiming at solving our problem.

I drafted a working document that could serve as a basis of a future Resolution of the Conference of the Parties to the CITES.

4th March, I had a meeting at the European Commission to discuss my text and correct it.

3rd April, I went to Genève to discuss my text with the CITES Secretariat. From these conversations and from other contacts, it appeared that the will was there to solve the problem of falconers travelling abroad for hunting purposes.

The Swiss Ministry sent to the President of the Animals' Committee the text I had drafted.

The issue of "Frequent Cross-border Movements of Privately owned Animals" is put on the agenda of the next meeting of the Animals' Committee in September in Czech Republic.

5th July, I had a meeting at the European Commission where my text is discussed.

Tony Crosswell (BFC), Frank Bond (NAFA) and myself attended the meeting of the Animals' Committee in the Czech Republic, 23.-27. September '96.

The president of the Animals Committee had modified my text quite thoroughly, especially by expanding its scope to all "personally owned live animals". The Animals' Committee approved it.

The approved text has been officially proposed by Switzerland and Germany as a Draft Resolution of the Conference of the Parties to the CITES to be hopefully adopted in Harare.

We were a team of five in Harare to support the German-Swiss proposal, Tim Kimmel, president of NAFA, Frank Bond legal adviser of NAFA, Tony Croswell of the British Falconers' Club, Nick Fox of NARC (Abu-Dhabi) and myself.

The draft Resolution had been distributed with comments by the CITES Secretariat.

It was obvious that steps had to be undertaken to meet the worries of the Secretariat.

In the meantime, we had been contacted by representatives of interested groups that may be considered as opposed to fieldsports: Agentur Wildtierschutz, Animal Defenders, Born Free Foundation, Humane Society of the United States.

They proposed to make some changes to the text of the proposal. We held a meeting with the representatives of the above mentioned organizations and agreed on some amendments to be proposed to Germany and Switzerland.

These amendments were very reasonable and pragmatic : one animal per document, the Customs will have to validate the document.

I reproduce hereafter the document proposing the amendments.

That document is interesting insofar as it contains side by side "animal rightists" and falconers.

This confirms that in the international circles, whether governmental or non-governmental including animal rightists, the reputation of falconry has improved very much over the last decade.

The suggested amendments were accepted by the proposing countries and a revised version was submitted to the Parties.

Our "Pass" gave rise to very active discussions. The chairman intervened pointing out that there was obviously no majority in favour of the document and he proposed to reject it.

The Swiss and the German delegates took the floor and defended very strongly their amended proposal. They concluded by proposing to form a small working group to amend once more the text to accomodate the concerns expressed during the discussions and to submit a revised text the day after.

The chairman decided to vote on the forming of such a working group or on the rejection of the document and he added that the votes would constitute an indication on the attitude of the committee.

The result of the votes was 41 in favour of forming a working group and 17 against.
 
The german and the Swiss delegates together with a member of Traffic South Africa and myself held a short meeting and agreed on a few changes.

A second revision of the text was proposed to the Parries the day after, no one made a comment and thertext was then approved unanimously by the Committee II (the Conference of the Parties is divided into two Committees that prepare the issues to be voted on by the Plenary Session).

The draft resolution as adopted unanimously by the Committee II was also adopted unanimously by the Plenary Session of CoP 10. It then became officially a Resolution of the Conference of the Parties to the CITES.

Not only should this Resolution make things easier for the falconer who travels, it is also the unanimous recognition by 129 countries that falconry is a "legitimate purpose". Falconry has always been so far on a defensive position, now it is becoming much more proactive.

The resolution has come into force three months after the Conference.

The "passport" needs the "agreement between parties concerned". Who are the "Parties concerned"? It's your country. It is then for the national falconers' associations to persuade their country t oadopt an Agreement with the other countries concerned.

The European Union will have to adapt its legislation to be able to adopt Agreements with other Parties concerned and to fit the "Pass" in its legislation. At a very recent meeting of the member States there was a unanimous will to make every adaptation of the European legislation necessary to implement the Resolution on the Conference of the Parties on Frequent Transborder Movement of Personally Owned Live Animals.

The Resolution is not the end of a story, it's the beginning of a new one. The IAF is at your entire disposal to assist you in your efforts to make the "Falconry Pass" work in your country.

Whatever the end-result, one thing is definitely acquired : the recognition by 129 countries that falconry is a "legitimate purpose".
 

Words of thanks

To all those who have played directly or indirectly a part in the success of the "pass", I give great thanks, we all owe them a lot.

Very special thanks are given to the Delegates of Switzerland and Germany. Not only they accepted to officially propose a Resolution on falconers' transborder movements, but they defended their draft with energy and talent. The dialog between them and us was very straightforward. We also owe very much to Mr Jenkins the President of the Animals' Committee who worked out the text of the draft resolution. Many thanks to (in alphabetic order) Thomas Althaus, Peter Dollinger, Gerhard Emonds, Dietrich Jelden and Hank Jenkins, falconry owes you a lot!