An honourable compromise? (on the CITES ivory consensus)
...I'm sure many of you have been following this with interest and my thoughts were that perhaps it was such common knowledge that I ought not blog on it, but perhaps I may permit myself a comment on the final outcome and a short run down of the arguments as I saw them. I'll concentrate on the main players rather than the words of different conservation groups partially to simplify the matter and partially because I cannot remember who supported whom in a debate that has been boiling for a good five months now.
These are the arguments as I understand them:
South Africa, Botswana and Namibia were calling for an opening up of the licenced worldwide trade in ivory on the grounds that they have implemented conservation programmes that have allowed their elephant populations to become stable and even reach nuisance levels. They feel that the sustainable hunting of elephants for ivory could provide income for further conservation efforts as well as help mitigate human elephant conflict problems, they also feel that they have sufficient checks and balances in place to keep this trade legal and that they shouldn't be punished if other countries in Africa do not.
They are supported in these arguments by Zimbabwe. It seems the international community have doubts about any official Government population figures coming from Zimbabwe or any assurances of checks, balances to control the trade and ensure sustainability but, with the exception of the U.S.A, are too polite to say so. As such Zimbabwe's 'support' for these plans may have proved the exact opposite.
The majority of other African range states - lead by Mali and Kenya - are calling for a 20 year ban on all ivory trade, they point to a rise in poaching that they say has accompanied the mere mention of any ivory sale or relaxation of the rules.
The monitoring agencies are divided as to whether legal ivory sales actually do lead to an increase in poaching.
The main agency arguing no correlation between legal sales and a parallel illegal trade seems to base its argument on the fact that there has been a slight, steady, increase in the number of illegal shipments captured year on year rather than observed spikes in captured shipments surrounding announced legal sales. The agency puts the rise down to better coordination between international law enforcement agencies and greater commitment to address the issues in transit countries such as Thailand, Hong Kong and the U.A.E.
Though their final point is a good one it seems a little like denying a crime spree by pointing out that no-one has been arrested.
Those that argue for a correllation do so by counting the number of poached carcasses found and encounters with poachers within the protected areas of those countries not seeking to open the trade; which, from a viewpoint sitting behind this computer, does seem a little more realistic - but again could be due to an increased level of commitment to the subject as civil wars dry up or as funding and organisation increases.
Both China and Japan lobbied to be allowed to buy ivory but only Japan was granted this right as the monitoring officials had greater confidence in Japanese oversight of the legal trade and the low chance that ivory bought legally in Japan will be re-sold illegally elsewhere.
...and, on this basis, a compromise was reached - now read on:
_______________________________________
PRESS RELEASE
African governments reach consensus on ivory sales
|
See also ...
07/06/2007:The Hague, 14 June 2007 - Eighteen years after the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) banned the ivory trade, Ministers from the African elephant range states have for the first time achieved a regional consensus on how to address this highly charged issue.
Under the compromise agreement reached today, each of four southern African countries will be permitted to make a single sale of ivory on top of the one-off sale totalling 60 tonnes that was agreed in principle in 2002 and given the go-ahead earlier this month.
The ivory for these new sales will consist of all government-owned stocks that have been registered and verified as of 31 January 2007. Each sale is to consist of a single shipment per destination and may only go to countries whose internal controls on ivory sales have been verified as being sufficient by the CITES Secretariat.
The agreement stipulates that after these shipments have been completed no new proposals for further sales from these four countries are to be considered by CITES during a "resting period" of nine years that will commence as soon as the new sales have been completed.
In the meantime, the CITES Standing Committee, which oversees the implementation of CITES decisions when the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP) is not in session, will work on developing a new and more effective approach to taking future decisions on the international ivory trade.
"This African solution to an African problem marks a great step forward for wildlife conservation," said CITES Secretary-General Willem Wijnstekers. "It is good news for the elephant, good news for the people who live alongside them and good news for regional cooperation in Africa."
Background
The long-running global debate over the African elephant has focused on the benefits that income from ivory sales may bring to conservation and to local communities living side by side with elephants and concerns that such sales may encourage poaching.
CITES banned the international commercial ivory trade in 1989. Then, in 1997, recognizing that some southern African elephant populations were healthy and well managed, it permitted Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to make a one-time sale of a stock of ivory to Japan totalling 50 tonnes. The sales took place in 1999 and earned some USD 5 million.
In 2002, CITES agreed in principle to allow a second sale from Botswana (20 tonnes), Namibia (10 tonnes) and South Africa (30 tonnes). (In 2004 a request that CITES authorize annual quotas was not agreed.) The one-time sales were made conditional on the ability of the MIKE programme (Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants) to establish up-to-date and comprehensive baseline data on elephant poaching and population levels. MIKE was established to provide an objective assessment of what impact future ivory sales may have on elephant populations and poaching.
The CITES Standing Committee determined on 2 June of this year that the MIKE baseline data have now been assembled and that the sales could go forward.
For this year's conference, Botswana and Namibia jointly submitted a new proposal to ease the conditions for permitting future sales of ivory. In addition, Botswana requested authorization for a one-off sale of 40 tonnes of existing ivory stocks followed by an annual export quota of up to eight tonnes of ivory per year from its national population.
Taking the opposing view, Kenya and Mali proposed that a ban on trade in raw or worked ivory from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe be imposed for a period of 20 years. They argued that allowing any trade in ivory will increase the poaching of elephants.
The African range States met separately throughout the course of the current CITES conference in an effort to bridge their differences. With the help of Ministers attending yesterday's Ministerial segment, they managed today to reach the consensus described above.
_________________________________________
PS. Though not stated here I believe Zimbabwe was given a further burden of proof to her check and balance system and must allow international observers to audit the process before her sale can go ahead.
...about a week later the following piece appeared in the Zimbabwean. Now, I'm not sure if the newspaper is published in Harrare (not world renowned for its free and lively press debate) or if it is a paper in exile (in which case it may have a political axe to grind) but it sort of underlines the ummming and ahhhing about the one seller and one buyer that everyone had doubts about.
If there is an investigation we await the outcome.
________________________________________________________
Illicit ivory barter deal exposed (Zimbabwe)
ITAI DZAMARA, The Zimbabwean
June 26, 2007
Zimbabwe has been surreptitiously bartering tons of ivory with its ally, China, in return for military hardware amid reports the State has been systematically pillaging natural resources and poaching endangered elephants to enrich a few ruling elite.
Details of the illicit operation emerged as the 171-member Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) relaxed its regulations in Geneva last week allowing four African countries, including Zimbabwe, to put their ivory stocks on the market in a one-time sale.
The sale, which will be done in Japan, has allayed fears by wildlife organizations that the secretive trade here in ivory would escalate.
The ban was lifted after an 18-year moratorium in ivory trade. After this sale, future sales will be frozen for nine years. Zimbabwe’s tourist literature makes great play of a supposedly rising elephant population, but experts believe the figures have been distorted as part of an attempt by Mugabe’s cash-strapped regime to make CITES relax its ivory trading rules.
Zimbabwe’s department of Parks and Wildlife, appealed to CITES earlier last year for clearance to sell 10 tons of ivory, but failed in a complicated negotiation involving Botswana, Namibia and South Africa.
At about the same time substantial quantities of high-calibre ammunition allegedly went missing from the Wildlife department’s armoury near State House in Harare, coinciding with an upsurge in poaching in the Zambezi Valley bordering Zambia, where experts claim up to 200 elephants have been killed over the past year alone.
The Zimbabwean government blamed much of the carnage on foreign animal rights groups, which it claimed were trying to thwart Mugabe’s bid to have the CITES rules relaxed.
The Zimbabwean learnt that a cargo of ivory was recently flown to Beijing via Libya and was thought to have been part payment for thousands of rifles, bullets, anti-riot equipment and other military hardware flown into the Zimbabwean capital around the same time.
The aircraft used to fly the ivory to China was said to be an Angolan-owned Ilyushin, routed via Libya. Mugabe has close ties with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, and was in that country on an official state visit last week.
Worth almost US$1m, the sale was a serious breach of rules covering the ivory trade, and is being investigated by Interpol and CITES, according to our wildlife sources.
Ivory commands a black market price of more than US$100 a kilogram. Demand is greatest in Japan and China. The Beijing government is officially opposed to the trade, but wildlife experts in Harare say that unofficially, Chinese demand is high.
Mugabe was reportedly approached by the Chinese shortly after he started vigorously pursuing his Look East policy. Worried that his grip on power was slipping after 27 years, he knew he might need arms to contain a rising tide of opopposition to his rule. CITES has previously investigated rumours of the shipments, but was assured by Zimbabwe’s Wildlife department that just over 23 tons of ivory were stored at its Harare headquarters, one ton less than when CITES inquired a year earlier. Officials said the missing ton had been legitimately sold on the local market to craftsmen.
But former Wildlife department employees say the official statistics are almost meaningless, given that up to 50 elephants can be killed by poachers in a typical raid lasting between two and three weeks, bringing anything up to two tons of ivory onto the illegal market.
If Zimbabwe’s claims to have an elephant population of 70,000 are anywhere near accurate, then scientists say natural rates of attrition would also yield several tons of ivory each year.
Other former officials said Mugabe would like to sell off the country’s entire ivory stock because he sees it as an opportunity to raise desperately needed hard currency to bankroll fuel and food imports. The cost of maintaining ivory at a constant humidity and temperature is also steep.
Only a handful of trusted officials - all loyal to the ruling Zanu (PF) party - have access to the stores.
Reply to this