The Sunday News
THE just ended Conference of Parties (CoP 17) on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) in South Africa failed to produce a favourable outcome for the Southern African countries that went to the conference lobbying for the legalisation of commercial trade in ivory.
The argument mainly by Zimbabwe and Namibia with the support of South Africa and Zambia for the lifting of all restrictions on commercial trade in elephant products was not accepted. These Southern African countries’ argument was premised on the basis that their elephant populations were swelling to levels where they cannot sustain brewing serious conservation, economic and social effects on the countries.
Elephants by nature need a lot of space but most of the Southern African countries’ elephant populations now exceed their carrying capacity. Zimbabwe for example has an estimated 84 000 elephants against an optimum carrying capacity of 50 000 and a 70 tonne ivory stockpile with an estimated value of $35 million. The growing elephant population according to conservationists was creating a lot of human–wildlife conflict as humans and the big animals continue to fight for space and the little available resources. The conflicts have resulted in loss of human life, crops and the destruction of the environment.
It was Zimbabwe and Namibia’s humble and strong submission at the conference that the natural resources that the countries were endowed with should be used to fund conservation projects and assist impoverished communities.
According to Zimbabwe’s position paper, the protectionist idealism is contrary to economic development in Zimbabwe since the growth of the tourism economy in Zimbabwe is hinged upon the sustainable utilisation of the resources found within the country.
Southern African countries were therefore calling for the conference not to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach as each country was having problems unique to itself in as far as conservation is concerned.
Ironically and interestingly there are countries that are known to have no elephants at all but were arguing strongly for the continued ban of the trade — a shocking case where those that are not bereaved cry more than the bereaved. They were supporting Benin, Kenya, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Central Africa Republic and others who were waging a spirited counter lobby to maintain the restrictions arguing that if the ban in trade was lifted poaching was going to be on the rise, further decimating the elephant population that is already under threat. They were therefore proposing to include all populations of Loxodonta africana (African Elephant) in Appendix I through the transfer from Appendix II.
“It is shocking that there are countries without elephants and whose officials here have not seen an elephant but are now dictating the pace to countries that have more. The basis of their arguments cannot be understood. They are simply punching holes on the efforts of other people,” said one Zambian representative at the conference.
His comments were echoed by Mr Ron Thomson of the True Green Alliance who added that some delegates to the conference had never seen an elephant and yet they were pushing for the ban.
“They tell everybody that the African elephant is facing extinction which is not true. They solicit money from the world’s public on that basis and generate funds for animal welfare in the range of $200 million per year. So the argument is not about conserving African elephants but about them getting money,” he said.
Had the conference adopted the proposal as per their wish it was going to mean that all countries in Africa were not going to be allowed to trade in elephants and its products.
And although the proposal by Zimbabwe and some Southern African countries for the uplifting of the all restrictions on trade was not accepted Cites would also not allow for the transfer of elephants from Appendix II to Appendix I where there was going to be a blanket ban on trade in elephants and all its products.
Kenya recently burnt its stockpile of ivory after trade in the product was banned and its Environment Minister Judi Wakhungu said the decision was because there was no appetite for trade in ivory. She said Africa was losing 35 000 elephants per year to poaching and other illegal means while the birth rate could not keep up to that concretising the argument that opening trade in ivory would see more poaching activities taking place.
Zimbabwe and its Southern African counterparts however, still have their stockpiles and were banking on the uplifting of the ban to resume trade. Their argument that the restrictions were in contravention of the Convention of Biological Diversity and the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable use of Biodiversity which confirm the right and the need for the sustainable use of natural resources was not accepted.
Environment, Water and Climate Minister Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri said Zimbabwe was not likely going to burn the ivory stockpile like Kenya.
“It’s their choice to burn their stockpile. We are not likely going to do the same because of the current restrictions. We are not an extension of Kenya. We have done so well as Zimbabwe and some of Southern African countries and it looks like we are being punished for our sustainable and successful conservation practices that have seen our herd growing.
“There is an overpopulation of elephants in Zimbabwe and the ecosystem, in the major elephant range areas, is already under pressure from the high numbers. This generally tends to compromise the survival of other species of plants and animals,” said Minister Muchinguri- Kashiri.
Environment Africa country director Mr Barnabas Mawire said although the conference refused to lift the ban on trade in ivory, the country should at least celebrate the success of defending the transfer to Appendix l where trade in elephants would have been banned completely.
He said in the case of Zimbabwe that had more elephants the headache in terms of human-wildlife conflicts that the conference refused to take into consideration was going to continue unabated as the two continue to fight for space and resources.
Mr Mawire added that the only way now was for the Southern African countries to unite and continue lobbying for the removal of the restrictions so that they were allowed to trade in their huge stockpiles of ivory.
“We were not defeated. The success story is that we managed to defend the transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I which transfer was going to have serious consequences in our case because it meant we were not going to trade in elephants and its products. We can however, trade in live elephants.
“Going forward however, the country needs to continue lobbying and invite those that matter to come and see for themselves what we mean when we say we have a serious challenge with our growing elephant population. This should not be the end.
Efforts should be put in place to ensure that the parties understand our position,” he said.
