Wildlife Trade - CITES Issues

[Klipspringer]

Proposal to open up rhino horn trade rejected


Countries voted against eSwatini and Namibia’s proposals to loosen restrictions on the trade in live rhinos and rhino parts.

BY RACHEL FOBAR

PUBLISHED AUGUST 25, 2019

GENEVA Countries have voted against decreasing protections for southern white rhinos at the 18th Conference of the Parties for CITES, the wildlife trade treaty, underway in Geneva, Switzerland. International trade in rhino parts has been banned since 1977, but at this year’s conference, eSwatini (formerly Swaziland) and Namibia proposed loosening restrictions for their respective countries.

"I was encouraged and relieved to see parties resoundingly reject the proposal calling for legal international trade in rhino horn," says Taylor Tench, a wildlife policy analyst for the Environmental Investigation Agency. "Rhino populations remain under immense pressure from poaching and illegal trade, and legalizing trade in rhino horn would have been disastrous for the world’s remaining rhino populations....Now is simply not the time to weaken protections for rhinos."

Other countries, including Kenya and Nigeria, worry that legalizing the trade would undermine the survival Africa’s wild rhinos.

“Humankind can do without rhino horn,” said a representative from Kenya during the debate. “It is not medicine.”

Thought to be extinct in the late 1800s, the southern white rhino is classified today as near threatened by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which determines the conservation status of species. There are about 18,000 in protected areas and private game reserves today, almost all in South Africa, according to the IUCN. Black rhinos, which are smaller and have a hooked rather than square lip, are classified as critically endangered, with only about 5,000 remaining. They’re found mostly in Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Kenya.

In 2005, eSwatini allowed the noncommercial trade in live rhinos and hunting trophies but not rhino horn. The country put forward a failed proposal to open the commercial rhino horn trade at the last CITES Conference of the Parties, in 2016. eSwatini’s white rhino population reached 90 in 2015, but following one of the country’s worst droughts in recent history, it had fallen to just 66 by December 2017. This year, the country re-upped a proposal to allow for commercial trade in their rhinos, including horn and parts. In a 25-102 vote by secret ballot, this measure was defeated.

Meanwhile, Namibia proposed that CITES downlist its southern white rhinos from Appendix I to Appendix II, with an annotation allowing for trade in live rhinos and export of hunting trophies. Though this move would technically weaken protections, conservationists said it wouldn’t have any significant implications in practice, since Namibia is already allowed noncommercial trade in live rhinos and hunting trophies under the Appendix I listing.

In the proposal, Namibia argued that its population no longer warrants the highest protection under CITES and that the restriction preventing export for “primarily commercial purposes” has held the country back from generating revenue for conservation. From 2008 to 2018, Namibia exported 27 white rhinos to Angola, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Africa. Namibia’s proposal anticipates creating “access to a far larger market for white rhinos,” especially with its primary trading partner South Africa. The country has nearly a thousand rhinos, and according to the CITES secretariat, the population is “increasing.”

“We are deeply concerned that unjustified trade restriction on the Namibian white rhino population, if not removed, will only deprive Namibia of their required resources to manage its populations effectively,” said a representative from Namibia during the debate.

Nonetheless, says Tench of the EIA, Namibia’s rhinos are at risk from poaching, which has intensified since 2014. The proposal was narrowly rejected in a 39-82 vote.

Hundreds of rhinos are poached every year—an average of about three a day, according to Tench—mostly for their horns. Made of keratin (the same protein that makes up our hair and fingernails), rhino horn is often used as a cure-all in traditional medicine in China, Vietnam, and elsewhere in Asia. Because southern white rhinos are more abundant and live in more open habitat, they’ve borne the brunt of the poaching, Tench says. (Go inside the deadly rhino horn trade.)

eSwatini says it has nearly 730 pounds of stockpiled rhino horn, with a commercial value of $9.9 million. Funds from sales of that rhino horn, it contends in its proposal, would have helped conservation efforts.

“Money is at the very core of the matter,” said a representative from eSwatini during the debate. “If the finance is not available to protect them, rhinos will continue to die.”

Opening the commercial rhino horn trade could have had disastrous implications, Tench says. It could have spawned a parallel illegal market, stimulated new demand for rhino horn, increased poaching, and created an enforcement burden for officials, who would have been tasked with the impossible responsibility of distinguishing legal from illegal rhino horn. “It ultimately could just kick off a new wave of demand that would be met by increased poaching. And eSwatini—it’s not the country that even could hope to supply rhino horn internationally. They have 66 rhinos.”

What’s more, the trade in rhino horn is illegal in China and Vietnam, where demand for rhino horn exists, leading conservationists to ask: Who would have engaged eSwatini in the rhino horn trade?

Neither China nor Vietnam has declared any intention to legalize the trade, although China flirted with the idea last October, when the government announced that tiger bone and rhino horn could be used legally in medical research or for traditional medicine. Soon after, a senior official announced that China was postponing lifting the ban on rhino and tiger parts, pending further study.

“The suggestion that there’s value in the rhino horn that eSwatini has is kind of false anyway, because they’re projecting that based on a black-market value and an assumption that those legal markets would open up again,” says Matt Collis, director of international policy at the International Fund for Animal Welfare, an animal welfare and conservation nonprofit that does works to prevent rhino poaching.

Collis says it’s unclear what Namibia hoped to achieve with its proposal—since under current regulations, noncommercial trade in live rhinos and trophies is already allowed in the country.

So, he says, this could have been a first step toward liberalizing trade in the future, because the proposal would have moved Namibia’s rhinos to Appendix II.

“It’s not necessarily clear what the motivation is, unless it’s for something for the longer term,” Collis says.

Going forward, Collis says conservationists need to help countries who bear the burden of protecting these species find another way to fund their efforts. “It does need a concerted effort from the international community to offer alternative ways of financing,” he says.

[Lisbeth]

The Elephant In The Room At CITES CoP18, Geneva Switzerland

BY MEGAN CARR - 24TH AUGUST 2019

“It’s just a genuine, feel-good conservation story” – Dallas Zoo, USA

Seventeen elephants were exported from Swaziland to the USA in 2016. These elephants were moved into the Dallas Zoo, the Sedgwick County Zoo in Kansas and the Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium in Omaha. The three zoos formed a partnership to import the elephants, stating that dozens of elephants are confined to fenced enclosures in two privately managed parks in Swaziland. The zoos spokesperson said that they had not bought the elephants but would donate money to Swaziland’s rhino conservation efforts. Ted Reilly, founder of Big Game Parks in Swaziland, said that he had decided to reduce the country’s elephant population and that relocating the elephants elsewhere in Africa was not feasible. Reilly also said that the elephants would have to be slaughtered if they could not be exported to the USA.

International Trade in live elephants, especially when the elephants are taken out of their natural range, is a very sensitive issue that has berated expressions of public concern. The export of live wild elephants serves no credible conservation purpose and is opposed by numerous elephant biologists. Scientific research has proved that elephants are social and emotional creatures who form strong family bonds and suffer tremendously in captivity.

The only acceptable and appropriate destination for wild African elephants is in their natural range states. No wild elephant should ever be torn away from its mother and subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions in order to stock zoos, circuses and other entertainment facilities in countries abroad.

African elephants are protected against trade under the CITES convention but with the annotation that allows live elephants to be exported to appropriate and acceptable destinations. We know that Zimbabwe, Botswana and Swaziland have exported young elephants to zoos in China, the USA and the UAE. Zimbabwe has taken advantage of this loophole and over the past twenty years, more than two hundred elephants have been removed from their herd families to live in zoos. We know that many of these elephants have not survived and we also know that many are living in less than favourable conditions. Shocking video footage and photographic evidence has shown the appalling conditions in which the elephants are separated from their families. The People and Earth Solidarity Law Network (PESLawyers) launched an application for an interdict with the High Court on Zimbabwe’s trade in wild elephants and have successfully served papers on ZimParks and the Minister of the Environment, Tourism and Hospitality Industry.

The first vote of the 18th meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties in Geneva on Sunday 18th August 2019 delivered a historic win for African elephants. The vote was proposed to end the cruel practice of removing live elephants from the wild for export to captive facilities. Forty-six countries voted in favour of prohibiting the transfer of elephants from Africa to facilities such as zoos around the world, eighteen countries voted against this proposal and nineteen countries abstained from the vote.

One of these countries that voted against keeping African elephants within their range states in African is the USA. Two hundred million people visited A.Z.A. accredited zoos in 2018 and elephants remain the top attraction, there are three hundred and five elephants in sixty-two zoos in America.

The EU represents twenty-eight countries and they did not vote in this preliminary session due to a technicality. According to our sources, the EU is poised to vote in favour of exporting wild baby elephants from Africa.
The African elephant Coalition is a consortium of thirty-two member countries interested in making sure that there is a healthy and viable elephant population free of threats from the international ivory trade. The AEC actively promotes the non-consumptive use of elephants.

Animal rights activists have started lobbying the EU Environment ministers and the Finnish presidency, representing the EU to support the thirty-two African countries who have proposed that the African elephant remains in Africa.


More than one hundred thousand people have signed a petition organised by the Global March for Elephants and Rhinos organisation addressed to US Interior Secretary and the USFWS asking for the ban of imports of the live endangered species from Africa to the USA.

A number of celebrities have spoken out against the EU and the USA in their failure to protect elephants from being exported from Africa. A letter organised by the Humane Society International, the Born Free Foundation, World Animal Protection and the Sheldrick Wildlife Trust has the backing of AEC and 55 elephant conservation charities.

The final vote takes place on Tuesday 27th August in Geneva, Switzerland.

[Lisbeth]

I am afraid that the decision tomorrow is going to be in favour of exporting wild baby elephants from Africa even if I am hoping the contrary. The majority of the voters have probably no idea of how important the sensibility, sense of belonging in a herd and the nearness for many years of the mother, are to a young elephant They have grown up with zoos and not with wild elephants.

Maybe I am understating the members of CITES

[Lisbeth]

Elephants and Ivory CITES CoP18 Report – Committee II

BY FONDATION FRANZ WEBER - DAVID SHEPHERD WILDLIFE FOUNDATION - PRO WILDLIFE - 22ND AUGUST 2019

CITES continues to apply pressure to countries with open domestic ivory markets and strengthens compliance measures for countries with ivory stockpiles.

1. On closure of domestic ivory markets

Parties confirmed their commitment to the closure of domestic ivory markets, agreeing by consensus to focus scrutiny on remaining open markets such as Japan and the EU. Countries which have not closed their domestic ivory markets will be requested to report on the measures THEY are taking to ensure that their domestic ivory markets are not contributing to poaching or illegal trade.

The language agreed by consensus is as follows:

Requests parties that have not closed their domestic markets for commercial trade in raw and worked ivory to report to the Secretariat for consideration by the Standing Committee at its 73rd and 74th meeting on what measures they are taking to ensure that their domestic ivory markets are not contributing to poaching or illegal trade.

2. On management of ivory stockpiles

A second elephant document submitted by members of the African Elephant Coalition pertains to the management, including the disposal, of ivory stockpiles. Document 69.4, with amendments, also passed by consensus. It strengthens the compliance measures for how countries report on their ivory stockpiles with a set of draft decisions that:

1. URGES Parties to maintain and report annually on ivory stockpiles in their territory, including on stolen and/or missing ivory;

2. CITES WILL IDENTIFY those Parties that have not provided information on their government-held and significant privately held stockpiles of ivory or where stockpiles are not well secured; and

3. CITES WILL DETERMINE whether any further actions are necessary in the case of Parties who fail to provide annual inventories of stockpiles

OVERVIEW FOR TODAY – THURSDAY 22 AUGUST – COMMITTEE I

Three controversial proposals to amend the Appendices for the African Elephant are on today’s agenda.

1. PROPOSAL 10: Transfer the population of Loxodonta africana of Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II.

PROPONENT: Zambia

SUMMARY: Transfer the population of Loxodonta africana of Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II subject to:

1. Trade in registered raw ivory (tusks and pieces) for commercial purposes only to CITES approved trading partners who will not re-export;

2. Trade in hunting trophies for noncommercial purposes;

3. Trade in hides and leather goods;

4. All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.

POSITION: OPPOSE. RATIONALE:

1. Would allow Zambia to export ivory. Any down-listing sends a message that ivory trade could reopen, fueling trafficking and threatening elephants across Africa and Asia.

2. Population in Zambia experienced a marked decline from 200,000 in 1972 to 17-26,000 in 2015 and has not recovered. It still meets the biological and precautionary criteria for listing in App I. Proposal fails to mention extensive poaching in several areas. The CoP18 MIKE report notes a high poaching level in South Luangwa in 2018.

3. Governance is a serious problem. ETIS identifies Zambia as a concern due to large-scale ivory movements.

2. PROPOSAL 11: Amendment to Annotation 2 of Appendix II pertaining to the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to enable resumption of trade in registered raw ivory.

PROPONENTS: Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe

SUMMARY: Amendment to Annotation 2 of Appendix II pertaining to the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to enable resumption of trade in registered raw ivory:

1. From government owned stocks (excluding seized and of unknown origin);

2. Only to trading partners verified by the Secretariat;

3. Proceeds only to be used to fund elephant conservation and community conservation and development programmes.

POSITION: OPPOSE. RATIONALE:

1. Would allow Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe to export ivory.

2. Will fuel demand, poaching and trafficking, and impact elephants in all range States. Ivory sales in 2008 led to a devastating escalation of poaching for ivory. On-going efforts to combat poaching and trafficking will be undermined.

3. Poaching is increasing in Southern Africa, including in Botswana (up 600% from 2014-2018) and South Africa. ETIS identifies problems with illegal ivory trade in all four countries, especially in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

3. PROPOSAL 12: Include all populations of Loxodonta africana in Appendix I through transferring populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe from Appendix II to Appendix I.

PROPONENTS: Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab

Republic, Togo.

POSITION: SUPPORT. RATIONALE:

1. The continental population declined by 68% from 1980-2015. Poaching remains high across Africa and is increasing in Southern Africa. Hot spots have moved from East Africa into Southern Africa (notably

Botswana) where over half of Africa’s elephants live.

2. As a highly migratory, transboundary species, CITES listing criteria should be applied to African elephants as a whole. CITES discourages split-listing due to enforcement problems.

3. Trading in ivory by some range States runs counter to agreed demand reduction efforts and endangers elephants in ALL range States.

4. The criteria for up-listing are met, in light of the “marked decline” (over 50% since 1980) and on-going poaching for ivory on a continental scale.

CITES

CITES was established in 1973, entered into force in 1975, and accords varying degrees of protection to more than 35,000 species of animals and plants. Currently 183 countries are Parties to the Convention. The CITES Standing Committee oversees the work of the Convention during the two- or three-year periods between its Conferences of the Parties (CoPs).

Ivory trade

All populations of African elephants were listed on CITES Appendix I in 1989, effectively banning international ivory trade. But the protection was weakened in 1997 and 2000 when populations in four countries (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe) were down-listed to Appendix II (a less endangered status) to allow two sales of ivory stockpiles to Japan and China in 1999 and 2008. In 1980, the African elephant population was estimated at 1.3 million individuals – in 2015, only 415,428 remained according to the 2016 IUCN African Elephant Status Report estimates, a decline of 68 percent.

FFW, DSWF, PW, AEC

Fondation Franz Weber (FFW), based in Bern, Switzerland, has been campaigning for the survival of the African elephant and the complete ban of the trade in ivory for 40 years. FFW has had observer status at CITES since 1989 and has been a partner of the African Elephant Coalition since its creation in 2008.

David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation (DSWF) based in Guildford, UK, is a highly effective wildlife conservation charity founded in 1984 by wildlife artist and conservationist David Shepherd CBE FRSA (1931-2017) to help save endangered wildlife. DSWF works to fight wildlife crime, protect endangered species and engage local communities to protect their native wildlife and associated habitats across Asia and Africa. The Foundation focusses on maximum conservation impact by taking a long-term holistic approach to the issues surrounding the species that they work to protect, fighting for greater legal protection of endangered species, funding international cross-border enforcement programmes and building capacity of key law enforcement networks. DSWF also supports undercover investigations into wildlife crime and campaigns to bring an end to the trade in the parts of endangered wildlife.

Pro Wildlife (PW), based in Munich, Germany, is committed to protecting wildlife and works to ensure the survival of species in their habitat, as well as the protection of individual animals. This includes advocacy, strengthening national and international regulations and ensuring their implementation.

The African Elephant Coalition (AEC) was established in 2008 in Bamako, Mali. It comprises 32 member countries from Africa including 27 African elephant range States united by a common goal: “a viable and healthy elephant population free of threats from international ivory trade.” The 32 member countries of the African Elephant Coalition are: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, The Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Togo, and Uganda. All AEC Members are Parties to CITES except for South Sudan.

[Lisbeth]

Wild Heart Wildlife Foundation
25 August at 21:31

We spent time this week photographing Elephants and studying the advanced social dynamics of these beautiful sentient beings.
Meanwhile at the CITES Conference in Geneva, world leaders discuss the fate of the planets wildlife. Some vote on effective ways to conserve and protect them and others on the best way to exploit them for profit.. The article below tells the sad truth..
---------------------------------------------------------
Southern African nations intimidate, bully and threaten the rest of Africa (and the world) in rejecting the full protection of African elephants

Geneva: Extraordinary scenes took place on Thursday at the 18th Conference of the Parties (CoP18) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as one by one southern African nations dropped established decorum for short-tempered outbursts attacking other African nations for trying to provide the full protection for African elephants under international law and rejecting their own proposals to open the international trade in ivory.

Southern Africa versus the rest

A proposal put forward by Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic and Togo and backed by the 32 African countries of the African Elephant Coalition (AEC) called for all African elephants be placed on Appendix I, which ensures that no commercial trade of elephants or their body parts would in the future be permitted.

Elephants in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are currently listed under Appendix II. These countries have been allowed to sell stockpiled ivory in the past, with dire consequences to elephants. Ever since the sales (in 1999 and 2008) of more than 150 tons of ivory to Japan and China, Africa has lost one-third of its entire population due to poaching for elephant tusks.

But South Africa said it was “affronted” and found it “incomprehensible” that other African nations dare table such a proposal. South Africa, along with other southern African nations earlier had their own attempt to sell their ivory stockpiles resolutely blocked by other CITES Parties, while a proposal by Zambia to downlist its elephant populations was also soundly rejected.

An infuriated Minister of Environment and Tourism for Botswana, Kitso Mokaila, called it “ridiculous and inconceivable”. Mokaila and his southern African counterparts repeatedly attacked other African nations for their poor governance and conservation records and for daring to give an endangered species the highest protection under international law. Mokaila openly threatened other Parties not to support the proposal.

The country’s chief of delegation said that other African were against the spirit of the Conventions by making “arguments with false allegation” and that their interventions during the debate were “not factually based, and not useful, particularly to atmosphere in which this discussion.” This was remarkable accusation given the hostile atmosphere was perpetuated by the southern Africans while other African nations maintained the soberness more in line with the convention.

Kenya for example, debated Zambia’s proposal to downlist based purely on biological criteria as provided by CITES documents and annexes as well as providing statistical data from academic research, scientific surveys and information as provided by the IUCN and other inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Selling ivory to support rural livelihoods?

Much of the vitriolic justification to trade in ivory centred around the livelihoods of impoverished rural communities. The arguments from southern Africa were based on a premise that the sales of ivory would contribute directly to the economic upliftment of the poor.

Zimbabwe’s delegation told the committee that its people are “walking barefooted, with no schools, no roads, no drinking water.” The country’s delegation believes the sale of its stockpile of ivory is the solution to poverty alleviation.

Botswana was of the same opinion: “You cannot be a good zoo and not be paid to be a good zookeeper,” said Mokaila in bizarre rant while South Africa’s delegation stated that the “proceeds of trade would be used exclusively for elephant conservation, community conservation and community development programs.” South Africa bemoaned that CITES was being “punitive” and “settling a score against southern African countries” and (referring to Zambia’s proposal) was not solving “real problems in situations where we are talking a least developed country.”

Namibia’s Minister of Environment Pohamba Shifeta argued that the “future threat to elephant population is not sustainable utilization but rather local communities retaliating if they do not benefit from destructive elephants.”

However, Alejandro Nadal, a renowned economist from El Colegio de Mexico here at the conference says all these statements are groundless. “These proclamations on the role of wildlife trade on elephant conservation and livelihoods and poverty alleviation are unjustified,” he said.

Nadal’s calculations show that even if all the ivory stocks in these countries were sold today at current market prices, and all of these resources were allocated to combat poverty, this would not make a dent on the lives of rural communities.

For example, Botswana made around US$7-million dollars from its sale of 43 tons of stockpile ivory in 2008. Given that there is, at best, around 500,000 rural villagers living in northern Botswana where elephants exist, this would equate to a one-off handout of just fourteen dollars per person. That does not even compare to the US$23-billion made off the proceeds of living elephants from leisure tourism in the year 2018, a figure that has an expected growth of 3,4% per annum.

“Poverty and social marginalization are macroeconomic problems,” Nadal points out. “They are related to economy-wide forces and long-term trends. The resources from selling the accumulated stock of ivory are orders of magnitude below what would be needed to even begin to make a difference. It is disingenuous to pretend that ivory sales will make a significant and durable difference in improving welfare of local populations or alleviating poverty.”

Nadal thinks the justifications are laughable. “Stating that these resources will be constructively used for the benefit of communities is misleading. The needs of rural populations will not disappear next year just because a government agency sells the ivory stocks this year.”

Elephant crisis

Elephants are in crisis with at least 20,000 being illegally killed each year for their ivory. On average around 55 elephants are poached every day in Africa, that’s roughly one every 26 minutes.

During the debate on Thursday, Kenya’s head of delegation pointed to factual analysis that shows a clear correlation between the 2008 ivory stockpile sales and an increase in illegal trade and poaching. He also noted that there has been an estimated increase of 71 percent in ivory smuggling out of Africa following the 2008 stockpile sales.

However, given the bluster and bludgeon from the southern African states which ended up putting the proposal to uplist all elephants on Appendix I on ice, the carnage throughout the continent is set to continue unabated.

Original article by Adam Cruise – PhD candidate: Stellenbosch University, South Africa
https://africanelephantjournal.com/open ... ernational…/…

[Lisbeth]

It’s time to break the deadlock over Africa’s ivory trade: here’s how

August 26, 2019 3.15pm BST



Fierce debates over ivory have dominated the global conference for the international trade in species for 30 years, since the first international ivory ban was instituted in 1989. This is no different at the 18th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) wrapping up in Switzerland this week.

At CITES, 183 countries who are signatories to the treaty decide on which of 36 000 listed species should be traded, or not. This is to ensure that their survival and conservation is not threatened.

The variety of experiences people have of elephants underlie the debates on whether ivory should be traded or not.

On one hand, countries that have large numbers often view elephants as a threat to the communities that live close to them. These are large, potentially dangerous, animals that can affect people’s livelihoods and lives.

This explains why countries like Botswana, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Zambia and Namibia – which host about 70% Africa’s elephants – are behind efforts to get a CITES agreement on a legal and highly regulated trade of ivory. Their proposals to trade say that proceeds would be used exclusively for elephant conservation and community development programmes.

The pro-trade perspective is that tourism revenue isn’t enough to finance elephant conservation and provide adequate benefits to the communities that live with them.

On the other hand, most other African countries strongly oppose any form of legal trade. They back a complete ban in trade. These countries argue that any trade legitimises the purchase of ivory, putting their own elephant populations at risk of increased poaching. But many of these countries have few, or even no, elephants.

This deadlock over ivory has created huge tension between conservation stakeholders and countries with the majority of African elephants.

It has also led to animosity between African countries and other groups that should be working together for elephant protection. Zimbabwe for instance, home to over 80 000 elephants, indicated it could withdraw from CITES. The government argues that other countries continue to prescribe how Zimbabwe should manage its own animals – a view supported by other southern African nations.

The vicious debates over ivory take up a considerable amount of time and energy at CITES. This means there is less time to focus on other critically endangered taxa – like orchids – that do not get the attention they deserve.

A new approach is urgently needed in which African countries with wild elephant populations develop workable solutions in a less confrontational manner.

New approach

It’s important to build a way forward using experiences from the successful resolution of conflicts – like those in South Africa and Colombia – and tensions over managing climate change.

In these experiences, the key stakeholders came together multiple times over several years. This enabled them to better understand their differences and develop workable solutions in a less confrontational manner.

Central to the approach would be to move away from the antagonistic issue of ivory as the central point of debate. Discussions should instead focus on agreed objectives. For instance, the global importance of the conservation of elephants and the rights, benefits and incentives to the custodians of elephants – the communities and countries where they live.

Focusing on communities is key. It’s also a position that is supported by extensive research, for instance Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom’s paper showed how providing a voice, rights and ownership to rural communities is key to the sustainable conservation of the environment and wildlife – like elephants.

One example of this includes Nepal’s approach whereby communities can get up to 50% revenue from visitors to world-famous national parks, like Chitwan.

Another example is Namibia’s communal conservancy programme where communities are given rights over wildlife. This includes the right to earn revenue with tourism partners and through hunting.

Small group dialogue

Dialogues between key parties should be initiated soon so that they can take place in the buildup to the next Conference of the Parties in 2022.

These small group discussions may reveal solutions – like a commitment by global bodies and NGOs – to provide an alternative equally valuable revenue source to replace ivory. These solutions could potentially be linked to protecting elephants and their habitats, like savannas and forests, from degradation or destruction and at the same time provide global climate benefits.

Decisions at CITES Conferences of the Parties are made with votes, in halls filled with thousands of people and journalists. This does not create a good environment for deeper dialogue over contentious issues like ivory.

But countries can propose smaller discussions and working groups. As the CITES conference enters it last few days this week, it is urgent that African countries with elephants, as the ultimate custodians, take the lead in spear-heading and taking ownership of these processes.

It can eventually provide the example of dealing with the tensions over other iconic species – like rhinos – to the benefit of all CITES-listed species.

[Klipspringer]

https://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... I0RT-OZATP

AUGUST 28, 2019 / 10:08 AM / A DAY AGO
Namibia considers withdrawal from wildlife convention unless rhino trade eased
3 MIN READ

WINDHOEK (Reuters) - Namibia is considering withdrawing from the rules that govern the global trade in endangered species, after countries voted last week to reject proposals to relax restrictions on hunting and exporting its white rhinos.

Namibia has the second largest population of white rhinos after South Africa. It wants to allow more trophy hunting of rhinos and export of live animals, arguing that the funds it would raise would help it to protect the species.

But countries that are party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) voted last week against downgrading Namibia’s white rhinos from appendix I, the list of species threatened with extinction, to appendix II, a list of species with looser protections.

Minister of Environment and Tourism Pohamba Shifeta said in Geneva on Tuesday that Namibia would convene a meeting with other Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states to consider withdrawing from CITES.

“We had several submissions from SADC for downlisting our white rhino from appendix I to appendix II, but there are some who feel that Namibia’s population is still small and we contested that Namibia’s population is the second largest in the world,” said Shifeta.

The Namibian government estimated its white rhino population at 1,037 in 2017/2018. The white rhino populations of South Africa and eSwatini, formerly Swaziland, are already in appendix II.

“If CITES does not really help us to conserve our wild animals but frustrating those that are doing good I think there is no need for us to stay in CITES,” said Shifeta.

Botswana’s environmental and conservation minister Kitso Mokaila said that he was greatly disappointed by the outcome.

Mokaila said people in SADC countries have sacrificed to protect wild animals.

“They don’t plough, they don’t rear cattle or sheep or goats because wildlife destroys our livelihood,” said Mokaila.

Countries on Thursday also voted overwhelmingly to regulate international trade in giraffes, an endangered species, overcoming objections by southern African states and drawing praise from conservationists.

Reporting by Nyasha Nyaungwa; Editing by Peter Graff

[Lisbeth]

They don't care a damn about the future of the species, all they are thinking about is easy money

I can understand the wish to trade in rhino horns, but trophy hunting and other that include live rhinos, no!

" if you take my toys, I am not going to play anymore".

[Lisbeth]

CITES CoP18 – most controversial one ever? Here are the results for African species

Posted on August 29, 2019 by Africa Geographic Editorial in the NEWS DESK post series.



NEWS DESK POST by AG Editorial

The CITES 18th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP18) in Geneva, Switzerland has now come to an end, and a number of controversial proposals for trade have been settled. Some of the decisions have not been well-received by African range state governments, as they restrict or prevent these countries’ ability to generate much-needed revenue that could be used for conservation purposes.

These meetings occur roughly every three years, and amendments to the international trade rules can have profound conservation implications for affected species.

The listing of a species in Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected by trade, and effectively prevents commercial international trade, except under exceptional circumstances. Species listed in Appendix II are not necessarily threatened with extinction, but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation. They can be traded under special permit conditions. Appendix III is for species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the co-operation of other Parties in the control of trade.

Below is the list of the results of the proposals that affect species occurring in Africa and the continent’s coastal waters.

MAMMALS

The African elephant came under the spotlight in a number of trade proposals
African elephant (Loxodonta africana)
Three proposals out of the 56 submitted by governments to change the levels of protection of species of wild animals pertained to the African elephant and ivory poaching. Below are the three proposals:

PROPOSAL 10: Transfer the population of Loxodonta africana of Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II
PROPONENT: Zambia
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Transfer the population of Loxodonta africana of Zambia from Appendix I to Appendix II subject to:
• Trade in registered raw ivory (tusks and pieces) for commercial purposes only to CITES approved trading partners who will not re-export;
• Trade in hunting trophies for noncommercial purposes;
• Trade in hides and leather goods;
• All other specimens shall be deemed to be specimens of species in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: REJECTED

PROPOSAL 11: Amendment to Annotation 2 of Appendix II pertaining to the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to enable resumption of trade in registered raw ivory
PROPONENTS: Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Amendment to Annotation 2 of Appendix II pertaining to the elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe to enable resumption of trade in registered raw ivory:
• From government owned stocks (excluding seized and of unknown origin);
• Only to trading partners verified by the Secretariat;
• Proceeds only to be used to fund elephant conservation and community conservation and development programmes.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: REJECTED

PROPOSAL 12: Include all populations of Loxodonta africana in Appendix I through transferring populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe from Appendix II to Appendix I
PROPONENTS: Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: REJECTED

In addition, three documents relating to elephants were considered: 1) trade in live African elephants; 2) closure of domestic ivory markets; and 3) management of ivory stockpiles.

THE OUTCOMES OF THE THREE DOCUMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

• There is now a total ban on the trade in live, wild-caught African elephants to destinations outside of the African elephant range, with limited exceptions. This means that zoos will no longer be able to import wild-caught African elephants from Africa to their facilities in the United States, China, and many other countries outside the natural habitat of the species. Only in “exceptional circumstances” may elephants be exported beyond their natural range.
• Countries that have not closed the domestic trade in raw and worked ivory must provide details of measures they are taking to ensure that the domestic trade is not contributing to poaching or illegal trade.
• Countries are required to maintain and report annually on their ivory stockpiles, or face sanctions.

Namibia proposed to transfer its population of white rhino from Appendix I to II, and Eswatini proposed a measure that would allow international trade in rhino horns for commercial purposes. Both proposals were rejected
Southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum simum)
The proposals by Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) and Namibia to loosen restrictions on the trade in live rhinos and rhino parts was voted against by the members of the CITES committee.

PROPOSAL 8: Remove the existing annotation for the population of Eswatini
PROPONENTS: Eswatini
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Remove the existing annotation on the Appendix II listing of Eswatini’s white rhino population, which would allow:
• International trade in rhinos and their products – including horn and derivatives.
• Rhino horn to be sold from existing stock to licensed retailers in the Far East, plus up to 20 kg per annum, including harvested horn, to those retailers.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: REJECTED

PROPOSAL 9: Transfer the population of Namibia from Appendix I to Appendix II
PROPONENTS: Namibia
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Change the CITES status of Namibia’s white rhino population from Appendix I to Appendix II , which would allow international trade in:
• Live animals to appropriate and acceptable destinations; and
• Hunting trophies.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: REJECTED

Giraffes have been given their first ever international protection through a new Appendix II designation. This means that international trade in giraffe parts, such as hides, bones and meat, will be regulated to ensure that it is not detrimental to the survival of the species.

PROPOSAL 5: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: Central African Republic, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Niger, and Senegal
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Place all seven species and subspecies of giraffes under the protection of Appendix II.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

BIRDS

Black crowned-crane (Balearica pavonina)
PROPOSAL 19: Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I
PROPONENTS: Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Transfer the black-crowned crane from Appendix II to I, to prohibit international trade in the species.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

REPTILES

Grandidier’s Madagascar ground gecko (Paroedura androyensis)
PROPOSAL 30: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: European Union and Madagascar
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: List the gecko under Appendix II in order to have more control over its trade.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

Pancake tortoise (Malacochersus tornieri)
PROPOSAL 37: Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I
PROPONENTS: Kenya and United States of America
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I due to the high demand in the international pet trade and its status as ‘Critically Endangered’ by the IUCN Red List .
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

MARINE

Mako sharks (Isurus oxyrinchus, Isurus paucus)
PROPOSAL 42: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Egypt, European Union, Gabon, Gambia, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Samoa, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Togo
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Place mako sharks under Appendix II in order to regulate trade. This will ensure that the harvest of specimens from the wild is not reducing the wild population to a level at which its survival might be threatened by continued harvesting.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

Guitarfish (Glaucostegus spp.)
PROPOSAL 43: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, European Union, Gabon, Gambia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Monaco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, and Ukraine
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Place guitarfish species under Appendix II in order to regulate trade. This will ensure that the harvest of specimens from the wild is not reducing the wild population to a level at which its survival might be threatened by continued harvesting.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

Wedgefish (Rhinidae spp.)
PROPOSAL 44: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, European Union, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, India, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Monaco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, and Ukraine
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Place wedgefish species under Appendix II in order to regulate trade. This will ensure that the harvest of specimens from the wild is not reducing the wild population to a level at which its survival might be threatened by continued harvesting.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

Sea cucumbers (Holothuria (Microthele) fuscogilva, Holothuria (Microthele) nobilis, Holothuria (Microthele) whitmaei)
PROPOSAL 45: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: European Union, Kenya, Senegal, Seychelles and United States of America
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: To regulate the trade in sea cucumbers to ensure that harvest from the wild is not reducing population to a level where survival might be threatened by continued harvest or other influences.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED

Collage showing the African padauk, afromosia, Mulanje cedar and bitter aloe
Top left: The African padauk is a native African species that is currently listed as ‘Least Concern’ under the IUCN © Mpingo Conservation & Development Initiative; Top right: Afromosia is a highly valued timber native to Central and West Africa © Nature and Development Foundation; Bottom left: The Mulanje cedar is considered commercially extinct and there are no mature trees remaining in their natural habitat © Craig Hilton-Taylor/IUCN; Bottom right: The bitter aloe is a medicinal plant native to South Africa and Lesotho © Garden Finance

FLORA

Mulanje cedar (Widdringtonia whytei)
PROPOSAL 50: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: Malawi
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This species faces numerous threats, the most serious of which are changing fire regimes, fuelwood collection, illegal logging, invasive tree species and conifer aphids. Placing under Appendix II will provide additional protection.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

Afromosia (Pericopsis elata)
PROPOSAL 53: Amend annotation #5 for Pericopsis elata
PROPONENTS: Côte d’Ivoire and European Union
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Afromosia is a highly valued timber native to Central and West Africa. It is currently listed under Appendix II with the annotation #5 which restricts the listing to “logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets”. However, loop holes have been discovered where traders from range States have been exporting sawn wood with minor, superficial transformations in order to circumvent CITES controls. The proposal now wants the annotation to be changed so that it includes transformed wood (and plywood), as follows: “Logs, sawn wood, veneer sheets, plywood, and transformed wood.”
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED

African padauk (Pterocarpus tinctorius)
PROPOSAL 54: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: Malawi
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: Place the species under Appendix II to help in the trade and harvest regulations.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED

Bitter aloe (Aloe ferox)
PROPOSAL 55: Include in Appendix II
PROPONENTS: South Africa
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: amend part f) of annotation #4, so that it includes Aloe ferox as part of the finished product.
DECISION BY CITES COMMITTEE: ACCEPTED AS AMENDED

[Lisbeth]

BUSINESS MAVERICK ANALYSIS

Megafauna stalemate calls for fresh thinking as CITES conference ends

By Ed Stoddard• 30 August 2019

The triennial CITES conference has just wrapped up in Geneva with an uneasy status quo on the thorny issues of trade in ivory and rhino horn. This is a pity. The arguments at the conferences on these issues have become stale and circular and new approaches are needed to break the stalemate.

South Africa is home to the vast majority of the world’s white rhinos, and around half of them, or 7,000, are owned by private ranchers, according to the Private Rhino Owners’ Association (PROA).

This “faunal privatisation” is part of a wider conservation success story, of farmers in South Africa transforming terrain previously used for livestock or other purposes into game ranches or ecotourism venues. This has unlocked entirely new value chains and is an innovative way of using land to generate capital while pursuing conservation goals.

One conservation goal, especially for large, dangerous animals that are generally threatened and have slow rates of reproduction, is simply to get their numbers up. In South Africa, the private sector has done this with rhinos. So PROA understandably is keen to see a lifting of the ban on the international trade in rhino horn. The animals can be dehorned, as the horn grows back, and the money made can provide returns to rhino ranchers for their investment, and give them incentives to protect and grow their herds.

A proposal at the latest Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) by Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) to sell its stockpiles – a sort of trial balloon also floated at the previous CITES – was rejected, as was a proposal led by Botswana seeking to loosen restrictions on the trade in ivory. These issues have for decades exposed regional differences in Africa on conservation policy, with southern Africa generally taking a pro-trade stance in opposition to the rest of the continent.

CITES is a UN convention that regulates trade in a commodity asset class, namely wildlife and products derived from wild plants and animals. The arguments in CITES’ megafauna stalemate have become stale. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to boil them down to their basics. Opposition to trade is usually based on the grounds that it signals that ivory or horn are legitimate commodities, thereby stimulating demand. There are also concerns that illicit supplies from poached animals can be “laundered” with legal supplies.

The pro-trade arguments generally focus on the need to raise money for conservation in Africa, which has many pressing social and economic needs. If ivory or horn stockpiles can be used to raise revenue, so be it. Where else is the money supposed to come from?

Variations on these themes have overshadowed CITES’ debates for decades, partly because discussions are dominated by governments and NGOs who often remain welded to outmoded ideas. This had lead to stalemate and frustration on the part of southern African policymakers, as well as private sector actors in the region.

Fresh thinking is clearly needed ahead of the 2022 CITES meeting in Costa Rica. Here are a couple of proposals for that:

If you want to ban trade and destroy stockpiles, I have argued before, you should raise the money to buy the stockpiles yourself and then do what you want with them. Trade is stifled while African governments raise additional revenue. This is not just a proposal for NGOs – rich governments that are opposed to trade could also provide funding.

On this front, money could also simply be paid to governments (or private farmers?) to maintain their stockpiles. There are templates – Norway is paying Indonesia to protect its tropical forests. Such a model could surely be applied more widely to other conservation initiatives.

Get real about human/wildlife conflict. Moves by Botswana’s government to attempt to sell ivory and the lifting of a ban on trophy elephant hunting have been criticised as transparent bids to win over rural voters. If that is indeed the case, one should ask why such policies would resonate with rural voters. Being dismissive on political grounds is condescending in the extreme to poor, rural Africans who have to live in close proximity to dangerous megafauna. We need to put their needs first and invest in costly infrastructure such as fencing to separate man and beast. Again, this will require funding, which could come from ivory or horn sales.

Writing this week in The Conversation, ecologist Duan Biggs and Matthew Holden say more dialogue is needed on the ivory issue among groups that often shout past each other. Such dialogue would seek “to provide an alternative equally valuable revenue source to replace ivory”. This is sensible and could be applied more widely, for example to rhino horn.

There is no “one size fits all” solution to this, but the path blazed by the private sector in South Africa is also well worth examining. Rolling out economic incentives to private sector operators who raise and protect wild megafauna should surely be in the toolkit as well. (Here’s a hint for the ANC: land confiscation proposals and threats to property rights are not at all helpful here). Their success when it comes to rhinos speaks for itself.