The ManicaPost
By Sifelani Tsiko
Environmentalists and wildlife experts in Zimbabwe say they are appalled by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) decision to support a comprehensive global ban on the ivory trade.
| The experts say moves by the conference which was still under way in South Africa to endorse the closure of all domestic ivory markets in addition to another international market ban in force since 1989 will spell the beginning of mass extinction of elephant populations in Zimbabwe and in three other SADC countries which still have healthy populations. |
The non-binding proposal on banning domestic ivory markets was approved at the CITES meeting after the conference threw out recommendations from Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to adopt a mechanism for a future trade in ivory.
Proposals to open up ivory markets by Namibia and Zimbabwe were totally rejected despite the countries presenting sound arguments that their elephant populations were robust and that their communities were not benefitting from their wildlife resources.
This was a after a secret ballot.
Barney Mawire, country director for Environment Africa (Zimbabwe), told Zimpapers Syndication that rather than pushing aggressively for an all – encompassing ban it would be better to encourage countries with healthy elephant numbers to “sustainably manage” their populations.
“Hunts are still being permitted but trade in accumulated stocks has been rejected and this is a big disappointment for some of us,” he said.
“While I appreciate hunts and trade in skins, CITES could have done better by dealing with the stockpile issue. We don’t believe in burning our stockpiles but in legal sales that can benefit local communities and improve infrastructure in our game parks.”
Dr Willie Nduku, a former director of Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority (ZimParks), was also disappointed by the CITES decision banning ivory trade.
“I don’t support that because the punishment is one-sided,” he said. “Why are they punishing the people who have done very well to maintain healthy elephant populations. It’s so unfair and we should be allowed to benefit from our ivory through legal trade.
“We have lost out on the accumulated stock. Our hope now remains on hunts which are the major revenue stream for our parks.”
Dr Nduku and Mawire concur that the ban, without adequate supporting programmes for wildlife conservation and development support for local communities living close to the parks, the ban will open floodgates for poaching.
“Rural communities should benefit from it. They are the ones who bore the brunt of wildlife attacks and also the destruction of their properties and livestock,” said Dr Nduku.
“If the ban is maintained, it will open our wildlife to more poaching.”
Said Mawire: “It’s a lost opportunity for CITES to try and deal with our current ivory stockpiles. We were really looking at a situation where such a gathering would actually consider our conservation efforts and reward our efforts by allowing us to trade legally in our stocks.”
Added Charles Jonga, director of Community Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire): “If people are able to benefit from the ivory, they will not poach, they will protect – give us a reason to protect, not fear them.”
A CITES working group guided largely by the Chinese delegation unanimously agreed to commit nations with legal domestic markets to shut them down, according to reports filtering from South Africa.
In a strange development, Botswana, the country with the largest elephant population (130 000) broke ranks and threw its weight behind a proposal to end trade elephant ivory.
For decades, four Southern African countries, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe have fought together to have their elephants listed on Appendix II but with an annotation that prevents any trade in their ivory.
When Botswana made a U-turn, it left its three neighbours opposed to the idea of an up-listing as they argued their elephant populations are healthy and beyond the carrying capacity of most of their parks.
The three were pressing to renew the trade in ivory at some point in the future.
Odds were against Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia as most countries supported by aggressive animal rights lobby groups pushed for the uplisting of elephants to Appendix 1 to stem rampant poaching in Africa.
Tshekedi Khama – Botswana’s Minister of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism – said the following in an online statement:
“There is a clear and growing global consensus that the ivory trade needs to be stopped if elephants are to be conserved effectively.
“We therefore support a total, unambiguous, and permanent ban on the ivory trade.
“Although Botswana supported the idea of limited, legal ivory sales from countries that managed their elephant herds sustainably, we now recognise that we can no longer support these sales. We must unite (in) solidarity with our colleagues regionally and worldwide to stop this crisis.”
Prior to COP 17, Botswana together with Namibia and Zimbabwe, were allowed to sell part of their large ivory stockpile to Japan in 1999 and, in 2008, to China and Japan.
Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa benefited from their stockpiles in 2008 when CITES approved a one-time ivory sale to China and Japan. Other sales in these countries took place in 1999 and 2008 and earned some US$20 million for elephant conservation and community development programmes in and around the elephant range areas.
Critics of ivory trade say the ivory sales to Japan and China triggered a dramatic spike in elephant poaching across Africa.
Strong statements by Burkina Faso, Kenya, Congo, and Chad at the CITES meeting also weakened the case for Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa.
Zimbabwe’s ivory stockpile has risen to 96 000 tonnes and is estimated to be worth US$100 million based on around $1,100 (£850) per kilo prices in China and other Asian countries.
In a surprising move, the European Union block opposed Appendix I listing, a position shared by the CITES Secretariat, which has rejected the proposal for a full ban.
This, at least, offered Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia a glimmer of hope, that the trio may get permission from CITES for once-off sales, if mechanism for legal trade are met.
“Selling ivory is a conservation tool,” Edna Molewa, South Africa’s environment minister was quoted saying why many countries still favour a double pronged – listing, with some elephants under Appendix I and others under Appendix II.
“It earns revenue which can be plowed back into conservation.”
Molewa argues strongly that legal ivory trade was an effective route for managing elephant populations which were beyond the carrying capacity of most range lands.
Other animal rights activist differed.
“When the country with the largest elephant population on the continent recognises the urgency of the need for maximum protection from the dangers of ivory trading, the arguments in favour of extending the current split-listing fall away,” says Keith Lindsay, an ecologist and animal rights activist.
At this year’s CITES meeting, it was Kenya, which early this year, destroyed 105 tonnes of ivory and 1,35 tonnes rhino horn with a combined market value of nearly US$200 million in a symbolic gesture aimed at shocking the world into putting an end to the slaughter of elephants, that put forward a proposal to give maximum level protection to all African elephants.
This bid failed after Kenya’s proposal failed to gain the two-thirds majority required.
The opposition of the EU, which voted as a block, was critical for the defeat.
The burning of ivory in Kenya tapped into the long-standing nervousness among Sadc countries which argue strongly in favour of using ivory proceeds for the protection and conservation of the region’s rich wildlife resource base.
Commentators and environmentalists from across the Sadc region expressed alarm over Kenya’s April 30 move to burn ivory stockpiles in a bid to raise national and international awareness on the illegal wildlife trade.
Rampant poaching in the sub-Saharan range has resulted in the deaths of 100 000 elephants from 2011 to 2013, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
In 2014, about 20 000 African elephants were killed by poachers.
Between 2009 and 2015, Tanzania and Mozambique lost over half their elephant populations, with similar figures reported across east and central Africa.
Wildlife campaigners say the statistics “underscore the toxic mix of determined criminal gangs, corrupt government officials and a strong market for smuggled ivory in Asia — particularly in China — which has deepened its economic ties to Africa in recent years.”
Poaching has become sophisticated with increasing reports of cyanide poisonings being reported in Zimbabwe.
Pro-ivory trade campaigners say there is no direct link between legal ivory sales and the increase in poaching.
“Burning or banning ivory trade is not the solution,” said Dr Nduku. “Kenya has banned ivory trade for a long time, it has even burned ivory, and all this has not changed things much. Poaching still remains serious in Kenya.
“We can use the ivory proceeds to help end the human-wildlife conflict and improve infrastructure within our parks.”
Adds Mawire: “We can still use the money from ivory sales to develop local communities living close to the game parks and also help the animals to be able to adapt to climate change.
Poor investment in our communities and our wildlife has negative consequences.
It ratchets up poaching and weakens conservation programmes.” – Zimpapers Syndication.
