Wildlife Trade - CITES Issues

Information and Discussions on Endangered Species
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Klipspringer »

https://africanelephantjournal.com/the- ... e-details/

August 18—Export of Live, Wild-Caught Elephants

In a surprise early vote, parties voted in committee to amend a resolution to limit the trade in live, wild-caught African elephants to range countries only. This issue has received international attention following the shipment of young elephants from Zimbabwe to China in 2015 and from eSwatini (formerly Swaziland) to U.S. zoos in 2016.

Zimbabwe, the U.S., and the European Union spoke against the move. “Live sales are part of our management tools,” the Zimbabwe delegate said, and those sales raise funds for conservation.

Kenya, Niger, and Burkina Faso spoke in support of it. “We all agree these are intelligent creatures with complex social links,” the Burkina Faso delegate said of elephants, arguing that they cannot thrive in captivity.

The European Union, which acts as a bloc but has 28 individual votes, asked for the vote to be postponed, but the chair rejected the call.

There were 46 yes votes and 18 no votes, with the European Union neither voting nor abstaining. Had they voted no, the resolution would not have passed. The proposal must now be confirmed or rejected at the plenary, which comes at the end of the Conference of Parties (CoP) and is where all appendix change proposals, resolutions, and decisions passed in committee are officially adopted.
While many elephant campaigners were pleased at the show of support, they are concerned that the debate could be reopened at the plenary and that the EU parties would vote no, reversing today’s approval.


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Lisbeth »

I wonder why the EU wanted to vote against the proposal :-? I suppose it depends on who the delegate/s is/are -O- I thought that Europe was broadminded. Political reason?


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Klipspringer »

EU did not vote.


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Lisbeth »

It ended up not voting, but the first idea was to vote against!
Zimbabwe, the U.S., and the European Union spoke against the move.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Klipspringer »

A propaganda piece:

https://www.chronicle.co.zw/cites-tells ... -evidence/
CITES tells vote-buying disadvantaged countries to present evidence


Emmanuel Koro in Geneva, Switzerland

If you were made to believe that vote rigging was only associated with African presidential elections where the UN always sends well-funded delegates to inspect them; think again.

Right here in Geneva, Switzerland, at the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Western animal rights groups and some Western countries are reportedly buying votes against ivory trade.

Ironically, this is happening within a UN agency belonging to a family highly regarded as the champion of democracy, with vote buyers and sellers going unpunished.

In what is a clear case of catching those that steal other CITES member countries’ votes for ivory and rhino horn etc, affected countries have been told to provide evidence of countries stealing their votes.

The SADC countries are worst affected by vote rigging as all Western animal rights groups and some Western countries continue to block any votes for international ivory and rhino horn trade. They do so for emotional and not scientific reasons.

The issue of vote rigging is becoming increasingly topical as we head to the vote on Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe’s ivory trade proposal today.

At conference in Geneva on Tuesday, CITES Secretary General Ivonne Higuero, was asked why the Secretariat is not investigating the ongoing Western animal rights groups influencing activities, in order to restore the integrity of the CITES voting process and the image of the organisation. This comes at a time when fed up African countries could pull out of CITES in protest over a tainted voting process that robs them of their sovereign rights to trade in their wildlife products such as ivory and rhino horn.

“I have no evidence of vote-buying or anything like that happening,” said Ms Higuero. “You (member countries that are complaining about vote-buying) have to present this evidence to the CITES Secretariat.”

She cited Resolution 17,3 (mostly ineffective, that calls for voluntary disclosure by whoever comes to attend CITES meetings and is not funded by his or her own government.

However, even here at CoP18 there is evidence that delegates from ‘weak’ African governments are being sponsored in different ways by Western animal rights groups but did not declare this to the CITES Secretariat. The CITES Secretariat is also obviously aware and can’t deny that Western animal rights groups don’t only pay for a trip, food and accommodation, in order to influence a CITES outcome.

Other corrupt CITES vote-influencing activities happen well before CITES meetings. They include outright bribery; honoraria payments for lectures, Board of Director’s fees, research grants and official visits are made to bribable countries.

Ms Higuero was quizzed further about what CITES is doing as a regulatory agency to address the ongoing and unfair shutting down of SADC countries’ ivory, rhino horn and hunting markets worldwide.

She was asked how it would be possible for the CITES Secretariat to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030 when hunting, ivory and horn trade markets for Africa were being shut-down worldwide.

In response Ms Higuero did not explain how this was going to interfere with the attainment of SDGs. Instead, she said that shutting down domestic markets was being done by sovereign nations and CITES had no control over that.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, yesterday a Zimbabwean state veterinarian offered a solution to the elephant overpopulation challenge in SADC countries. “They should stand up to CITES CoP18 and tell the US, Europe and all the Western animal rights groups to come and airlift African elephants to their own countries or anywhere else they please since they (African elephants) have been devalued by the ivory trade ban and ongoing ivory markets shut-down,” he said.

The vet continued: “If they (the Western nations and their animal rights groups) don’t remove 40 000 excess elephants from Hwange National Park, for example, in the next few months, then Zimbabwe or another SADC country will be forced to do the right thing – cull the excess elephants so that other species and the remaining elephant populations survive.”

The Zimbabwean vet said that SADC countries should additionally sue the Western organisations for the costs of maintaining the excessive number of animals and for the general loss of lesser flora and fauna species.

Even African journalists following frustrating events at CITES CoP18 have objected to the way African countries continue to be denied the opportunity to trade in their wildlife products such as ivory.

Almost all SADC countries are currently elephant overpopulate. Therefore, there are no valid grounds scientific or moral that should make anyone stop these sovereign countries from exercising their rights to trade in their stockpile ivory.

“It appears African governments are blind to take on the fight with the neo-colonial interests,” said Rwandan journalist Gerald Mbada and author of a book on China-Rwanda economic cooperation. “SADC countries seem to be organised but East, West and Central Africa still are in the dark.

Western conservation organisations have bribed the authorities who would be advising governments on the right and Pan-African approach. We are losing millions of dollars in unsold ivory yet we go to beg from the West funds to run our national parks. A big shame.”

A journalist from Botswana also expressed his frustration over Western animal rights groups’ unjustified opposition to the elephant over-populated SADC countries’ proposals to trade in their stockpiled tonnes of ivory.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the journalists said, “We are land owners with elephants, rhino’s and other animals, but we are failing ourselves. How can we allow a person to close down our markets inviting poverty and we just sit back and continue to be Beggars to the colonial masters? What is wrong with us?”
Emmanuel Koro is a Johannesburg-based international award-winning environmental journalist who has written extensively on environment and development issues in Africa.


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Lisbeth »

If the Southern African countries' Governments are corrupt, they are getting what they asked for :evil: Those countries will never be free if they don't get rid of corruption. Blaming others will not change this fact!


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Klipspringer »

Trade in giraffes to be regulated for first time: CITES


AUGUST 22, 2019 / Stephanie Nebehay


GENEVA (Reuters) - Countries voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to regulate international trade in giraffes, an endangered species, and in their body parts, overcoming objections by southern African states and drawing praise from conservationists.

The provisional decision, taken in a key committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), is expected to be endorsed at a plenary next week, officials said. The requirements would come into force 30 days later.

“The giraffe is in the wild much rarer than African elephants, much rarer,” Tom De Meulenaer, CITES’ scientific services chief, told a news briefing before the vote.

“We are talking about a few tens of thousands of giraffes, and talk about a few hundreds of thousands of African elephants. So we need to be careful,” he said.

Some 106 parties to the U.N.-backed wildlife conservation treaty voted in favor of the motion, 21 voted against, with 7 abstentions, the chairman said, adding: “The proposal is accepted.”

Wildlife activists welcomed the move to list nine species of giraffes on CITES Appendix II that regulates trade. It came after the defeat of a motion by Botswana and other southern African countries to exclude their giraffe populations from any regulation.

Giraffes face “silent extinct”, the Natural Resources Defense Council, a conservation group, said in a statement.

“By placing strict trade limits on giraffe parts, the CITES Parties have recognized that uncontrolled trade could threaten giraffe survival,” said Elly Pepper of the U.S.-based group. “Thanks to today’s decision, the international trade in giraffe parts – which includes rugs and bone carvings – will be tracked in a manner that allows us to focus on problem trends in destructive trade, and fight for additional protections if necessary,” she said.

Cassandra Koenen of World Animal Protection said that giraffes “are not playthings for trophy hunting - an unsustainable and unregulated industry”.

“This message is loud and clear: people care about wild animals and believe they should belong in the wild, not as a trophy in your office.”

Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Gareth Jones


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Lisbeth »

It should have been put in Appendix I.


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Klipspringer
Global Moderator
Posts: 5862
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
Country: Germany
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Klipspringer »

Proposals to Resume Ivory Sales Roundly Defeated
Environment 9 hours ago


Two proposals that would have resulted in a resumption of ivory sales by amending the CITES Appendices for the African elephant were roundly defeated today at CITES CoP 18.

Proposal 10 would have transferred elephants in Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II but was amended on the floor to delete sales of raw ivory and include only hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes, and trade in hides and leather goods from elephants controlled as a result of human-elephant conflict. The amended proposal was defeated by a vote of 102 to 22 with 13 abstentions.

Proposal 11 would have enabled Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe to resume trade in registered raw ivory. It was amended on the floor to provide for a single sale of ivory stockpiles from those four countries to parties verified by CITES with a six-year moratorium after that sale on any further sales. The amended proposal was defeated by a vote of 101 to 23 with 18 abstentions.

http://africasciencenews.org/proposals- ... -defeated/


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67237
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: CoP18 in May Postponed to August 17th 2019 in Geneva

Post by Lisbeth »

OPINION: Rhino horn trade – designing a sales mechanism should international trade become legal

Posted on 22 August, 2019 by Jane Wiltshire in Conservation, Opinion Editorial, Poaching, Research, Wildlife and the Opinion Editorial post series

OPINION POST by Jane Wiltshire

In the midst of the complex debate about whether or not to trade in rhino horn, I would like to address one important subplot: If the international sale of rhino horn WAS legalised could it be more successful than the previous sales of elephant tusks (1999 to Japan and 2008 to Japan and China)?

In this article I do not address the tussle between those espousing that legal international trade in rhino horn is African rhinos’ best chance of dodging the bullet of extinction in the wild and those who see legal trade as the kiss of death for rhino as a viable species in the wild.

As I write this, the debates rage at the CITES (Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species) being held in Geneva. Powerful voices argue that those ivory auctions did not reduce poaching, and nor did conservation in the selling countries benefit as it should have – due to collusion by the buyers. So, is it possible to design a sales platform that achieves the desired outcomes?

DESIRED OUTCOMES (in the rough order of importance, according to me):

• Efficacy in reducing poaching of rhino, with three sub-goals:
Maximising the income for conservation in the hands of rhino custodians so they have the funds to combat poaching and reap the reward for the dangers that caring for rhinos represent. This will also best benefit the South African economy and fiscus;
Optimising the substitution of poached horn by legal horn (crowding out the illegal product) and;
Reducing the opportunity for laundering poached horns through legal channels and increasing the ‘costs’ of cheating;

• Learning as much as possible about the price and demand for different rhino horn products for different end uses; and whether price will act to equilibrate legal, sustainable supply and demand;

• This should be done as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, while being accepted as broadly fair by the major players – so they are more likely to utilise the platform and stick to the rules; and

• Reduce opportunities for collusion.

There is a substantial body of research on the effects and efficacy of various trading models and the combinations and variations that are used in practice, and I have combined my practical experience in four very different types of auctions with a critical analysis of the most common auction mechanisms to produce a draft mechanism for discussion and refinement.

COMMON TYPES OF AUCTIONS

1. Ascending Bids
Bidders compete until ‘the last man standing’ or highest remaining bid gets the parcel. This has the advantages of being fairly transparent and tends to provide sellers with the best price if there is no collusion. The disadvantage is that all buyers need to be present physically or electronically at the sale time, which is disadvantageous for global trade that stretches across all time zones.

2. Descending Bids – also known as Dutch Clock, as used on the Dutch flower markets.
Each lot starts at a price determined by a rule or the auctioneer. The price ticks down until a bidder ‘stops the clock’. This tends to produce lower returns for sellers than 1. and is more susceptible to intimidation as the bidder has to ‘break ranks’ in order to bid. Again, the disadvantage is that all buyers need to be present physically or electronically at the sale time.

3. Sealed Bid Offers or Tenders
Bidders submit sealed bids (this can be electronically sealed) which are all opened at the appointed time. The opening process can be done in the presence of all bidders or only in front of an audit and tender team. The seller can specify the rules such as highest qualifying bid wins or can have sole discretion to accept any or no bids. This has advantages for global bidding and provides the seller with a large amount of information about demand and price points if there is no collusion and most bids are genuine. As the seller has time to evaluate the bids and assess who the bidders are, he has more time to figure out if there is collusion.

All three of the auction systems above allow sellers the following:

• Inserting a reserve price if desired.

• Deciding how much to sell, if any (although 1. and 2. would make this difficult as potential bidders who have registered and set aside the auction time would be annoyed if lots were to be withdrawn or withheld frequently); and

• As the lots could be closely specified – e.g. confiscated, poached, whole horn with X length and Y greatest circumference, Z weight and A1 quality grade – sellers would quickly get a sense of the price drivers and demand for various categories of horn and establish the key variables:
○ Some research has found that wild, i.e. poached horn, is more valued while other research has found that relative preference changes when price or lethality is taken into account;
○ Several researchers report differing willingness to pay points for whole horn, parts of horn, shavings and dust; and
○ Whether price fulfils its role as an equilibrating mechanism or not.

• As the selling platform would be acting as an exchange with any buyers and sellers who meet the criteria being able to sell or bid, these platforms should be classified as exchanges and therefore not fall foul of anti-trust legislation.

MY PREFERRED SALES MECHANISM

I will focus on option 3. above – Sealed Bid Offers, or Tenders – because of the disadvantages of the other two options, as described.

Key to this process would be the following:

Only horn and horn pieces/shavings/dust from accredited legal sources would be accepted for sale. This accreditation would include:
○ A permit showing provenance and proving legality;
○ A DNA ‘fingerprint’; and
○ A quality specification that certifies state of preservation etc, verifies the weight and dimensions and photographs the item from at least two axes from an accredited rating agency (an independent facility under the aegis of Onderspoort Veterinary School?)
○ A listing fee. This would limit sellers from registering frivolous bids with unrealistic reserve prices.

Only accredited buyers would be allocated an anonymous bidding number. This accreditation would include:
○ A sizeable non-refundable deposit that could be offset against a purchase if desired. This would dissuade buyers who were not serious;
○ The specification of the warehouse/s where product will be stored;
○ Tax clearance and police clearance from their home countries;
○ Their acceptance of random, unannounced checks of these specified premises to dissuade the laundering of illegal horn;
○ Their acceptance of the sanction of being permanently blacklisted from legal auctions if any illegal horn is found or can be proved to have been traded;
○ Bidders should only be natural persons and they should sign personal undertakings with permanent barring from auctions and mandatory prison terms;
○ A short amnesty period for traders wishing to become legal could be considered on payment of a fine and submitting the formerly illegal horn to the accreditation process could be considered as it could encourage traders to become legal. Former ‘bootleggers’ could prove to be a formidable bulwark against new or existing, illegal traders. In addition, by providing a route to legality, illegal traders might not be as motivated to disrupt the legal system; and
○ The accreditation should be open to as many buyers as possible in order to maximise revenue, make collusion more difficult and tip the balance of power in the trading platform’s favour as relative concentration confers benefits.

• As the attraction of the legal platform will be reliability, convenience, quality assurance and therefore a lower stockholding and hassle factor against the risks and uncertainties of illegal horn, the auction cycles should be short – say, weekly. This would also allow the managers of the platform to adjust the type and quantity of horn offered to maintain the revenue realisation reasonable while not ‘starving’ the market and so opening the door, once again to illegal horns.

• It will be key to the early success of the platform to have as many as possible of the larger holders and producers of horn committed to a regular supply. It is likely there will be an oversupply so a quota system will need to be instituted to not oversupply the market which would drive down price and also possibly attract new buyers.

• Professional, experienced, accountable management and a tough, rotating auditing oversight body together with a board that includes producers, conservationists and businessmen experienced in (particularly biological asset) auctions would be essential. The platform might be a body instituted by statute, such as the South African Sugar Association, but it must not be a state owned enterprise vulnerable to political cadre deployment, unethical behaviour and mismanagement.

Image
Rhino horn © Joanna Gilkeson/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services/Flickr

HOW IT WILL WORK

From the available, accredited horn that the platform has ‘on its books’ management will decide on the type and quantity of product to be offered for sale, establish whether the sellers still want to sell and if they wish to impose any reserve price. Sellers will then be responsible for procuring all the necessary documentation and delivering papers and product to the secure facility. The platform management will then compile that week’s catalogue and dispatch it electronically to registered bidders in a secure format that prevents anything except an individual computer displaying the data.

Bidders will be given a few days to register a ‘sealed offer’ electronically for those lots in which they are interested. Management will unseal the bids at the appointed hour, analyse the bids and inform the successful bidders, who will have 24 hours to deposit the funds and register a valid import permit. Should they fail to do this, the management reserves the right to offer to another bidder.

The successful bidders will be sent a secure electronic key which they can present at the secure storage facility and, together with the platform’s secure electronic key for that week, open the locker and remove the parcel. They will have the right to examine the parcel in the secure facility in the presence of a manager and an auditor to satisfy themselves that they are receiving the goods they bid on. Possession and risk will then pass from the seller to the buyer. Sellers will be paid within the week less a small broking fee. It is likely that a small charge for inspections and enforcement will also be levied.

Management will analyse the results of the previous week’s sales (and, as time goes by, trends and anomalies) and compile the next week’s catalogue and the cycle will begin again.

Image
© James Sanders/Flickr

DEALING WITH UNSALEABLE HORN

Some researchers worry that there would be differential demand for the various types of rhino horn, leaving the platform with surplus unsaleable types of horn. The following model has been proposed to deal with this problem.

SMART TRADE – based on the diamond or CSO model where buyers (termed sightholders) are each presented with a few parcels of mixed types and qualities of product at a given a price in a separate room at the same time. The sightholder then can either buy one or more of the parcels he has been presented with on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis. There is no negotiation.

This system has worked very well for De Beers for over a century but has run into problems with US anti-trust law and being associated with ‘blood diamonds’. It also requires the physical presence of buyers and the storage of considerable stock securely.

It has some added disadvantages for rhino horn:

• The parcels are likely to very highly priced if each sightholder is to be presented with a parcel containing a whole horn which is likely to limit the buyers and so make collusion easier;
• The value of the various types and qualities of rhino horn are not known so assembling the parcels will be problematic;
• As there seems to be so many different uses for rhino horn and it must be expected that there will be differing specialities among the sightholders, parcels are likely to contain types of horn that he does not want and will have to dispose of at a discount. This is likely to lead to a bias towards lower prices overall;
• It will be difficult to determine from the results of each sale the demand for each type of horn, its price points and whether the preferences researchers have posited actually exist.
• Additionally, it will be difficult to prove or disprove whether price is likely to equilibrate legal supply with demand.

AVAILABLE TOOLS INCREASE THE CHANCE OF SUCCESS

• The internet has opened up more avenues for selling at greater convenience and lower costs (e.g. buyers do not have to be present physically or at a certain time);
• Rhino horn can be profiled and presented on open or closed web platforms that identify the product being sold uniquely via photographs, dimensions, DNA ‘fingerprinting’, and certification as to quality and provenance;
• Viewers and/or buyers can be restricted to those pre-qualified by any number of criteria – including non-refundable deposits;
• Successful bidders can be required to produce whatever authentication is required before paying and then being given one part of an electronic, mathematical key;
• The selling organisation does not have to store or deliver the product – South Africa has some of the most sophisticated storage facilities for high value items at O.R Tambo Airport – developed for gold, diamonds, platinum, etc. The buyer or his agent can arrive with the electronic key, meet the seller’s representative where they can both input their keys, inspect the contents to ensure they are as was represented, sign a receipt and leave with the product.

Jane Wiltshire is a Fellow of Stellenbosch University’s African Institute of Wildlife Economy and has recently submitted her doctoral thesis: The Rhinoceros Horn Trade Ban: Can Scenario Formulation help build Consensus amongst highly polarised South African Stakeholders?


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
Post Reply

Return to “Endangered Species”