FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- Sitting at opposite ends of a cavernous auditorium, under a canopy of flags from around the world, Brazil and the Netherlands waged a polite but emotionally strained debate over a tree that grows thousands of miles away.
The chief delegate from the Netherlands -- whose Dutch people are fierce rain forest defenders -- argued that mahogany trees are disappearing so rapidly that trade in the wood must be restricted. Brazil's delegate fervently disagreed, saying his people should control the Amazon forests.
Both arguments were persuasive, but ultimately, the government ministers from 118 nations voted, by a slim margin, to side with Brazil and leave trade in mahogany unrestricted.
The conflict over mahogany -- a rich, highly prized tropical wood -- symbolizes a new direction for the world's largest and most powerful conservation treaty, the subject of the Florida talks that ended Friday. The 21-year-old Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which aims to protect the world's most coveted animals and plants, is the focus of a tumultuous debate over its mission.
Should its decisions on wildlife be based on science, or politics, or economics, or emotion? Is it primarily a conservation treaty, or a trade treaty?
At the core of the debate is one of the most wrenching environmental dilemmas: Which of the world's creatures warrant protection? Already, international trade is prohibited for more than 600 species from leopard skins and tiger bone to whale meat and rhino teeth. Trade is restricted for 25,000 other species.
In last week's talks, it was evident that more nations are prepared to accept the concept of "sustainable use," which maintains that if a threatened natural resource such as elephants or wild orchids -- or the plant used to manufacture the anti-cancer drug taxol -- is allowed to be traded in limited amounts, its government has more economic incentive to manage it in a way that will not drive it to extinction.
"It is a critical time for" the treaty, said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Director Mollie Beattie, the chief U.S. delegate. "I see it moving into a much more thoughtful mode than it has been in. . . . People have realized that [sustainable use] is really the keystone of this treaty. It is a means of having countries help other countries and help themselves."
Like any global treaty, the environmental pact must navigate the murky and sometimes treacherous waters of international conflicts. Wealthier, pro-preservationist nations, especially in Europe, are often pitted against cash-poor but resource-rich nations such as Malaysia and Zimbabwe.
The result has been a softening of extremes: Nations that used to demand to be left alone have agreed that they have to manage their natural resources well today to ensure their future existence. And those that used to support inflexible bans on trade agree that countries with a healthy economy have the money to spend on a healthier environment.
Much of the credit -- or blame -- for the easing of restrictions goes to South Africa, which has won a lot of converts with its strong efforts to protect wildlife.