Africa Wild

CITES CoP17: What you need to know about this endangered species conference

In spring this year, South Africa will be hosting the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP17) at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), set to take place in Johannesburg from 24 September to 5 October this year at the Sandton Convention Centre.

This will be the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES held on the African continent since CITES came into force on 1 July 1975, but the first on the continent since 2000.

Speaking at a Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs in Parliament on 24 May, Shonisani Mathews Munzhedzi, Deputy Director-General for Biodiversity and Conservation in the Department of Environmental Affairs, told delegates that SA's DEA hopes to achieve some sort of reconciliation between sustainable development and wildlife trade in the country at the upcoming CoP17.

“There is no place for ambiguity,” Munzhedzi said. Rather, the DEA hopes to create an interactive platform at CoP17, with a main focus of protecting the natural heritage and legacy in South Africa through “sustainable utilization”.

But what is this Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and why is it such an important event on both conservationists and wildlife traders' diaries? We've got the need-to-know right here:

What is CITES?

CITES is an international treaty drawn up in 1973 to protect flora and fauna against over-exploitation, and to prevent international trade from threatening species with extinction. It regulates international trade in over 35 000 species of plants and animals, including their products and derivatives, ensuring their survival in the wild with benefits for the livelihoods of local people and the global environment.

The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices, according to the degree of protection they need.

Appendix I, for example, includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.

Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade. Changes to Appendix III follow a distinct procedure from changes to Appendices I and II, as each country's assistant controlling CITES Party is entitled to make unilateral amendments to it.

What will happen at, and before CoP17?

Shortly, the state of species’ classification on the CITES list will be re-evaluated. CITES conventions happen every three years for such re-evaluations to take place.

Ahead of the actual convention, various countries proposed amendments to the rules of procedure – or classifications.

The cut-off date for countries to submit such proposals was 27 April this year, and now the Department of Environmental Affairs in SA will consider all proposals which directly affect the endangered species trade in our country.

As Munzhedzi mentioned at the DEA’s Portfolio Committee on 24 May, all proposal affecting SA “may not be favourable", and this decision-making needs to be "well-informed".

South Africa’s proposals to be discussed at CoP17

Firstly, a proposal to transfer the Cape Mountain Zebra from Appendix I to Appendix II has been made, meaning that SA hopes to ease trade in this endemic species.

The Cape mountain zebra is a subspecies of mountain zebra that occurs in certain mountainous regions of the Western and Eastern Cape provinces of South Africa. It is the smallest of all existing zebra species and also the most geographically restricted.

Although once nearly driven to extinction, the population has now been increased by several conservation methods, and is currently classified as ‘Vulnerable’ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

A proposal to transfer four pangolin species from Appendix II to Appendix I, meaning stricter trade laws, has also been put forward.

These incredible mammals are the most trafficked on earth, and their scales, which are made of keratin (the same protein as human nails or rhino horn), can sell in China for up to $600 per kilogramme.

The plight of the pangolin is a global one. Other countries including Angola, Botswana, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, the United States of America and the Philippines have also put forward a proposal to transfer four other pangolin species from CITES Appendix II to CITES Appendix I at CoP17.

Lastly, SA also proposed for Natal Ginger to be included in CITES’ Appendix II, in a bid to regulate the herbal medicines trade into South Africa through cross-border trade from Swaziland, which has put the plant under threat.

What the trade in rhino horn entails, Munzhedzi emphasised again that the DEA will “not be putting forward any rhino horn trade proposition in the upcoming CITES meeting”.

Swaziland, however, has tabled a proposal "to alter the existing annotation on the Appendix II listing of Swaziland’s white rhino, adopted at the 13th Conference of Parties in 2004. This would permit a limited and regulated trade in white rhino horn which has been collected in the past from natural deaths, or recovered from poached Swazi rhino, as well as horn that still has to be harvested in a non-lethal way from a limited number of white rhino in the future in Swaziland".

South Africa was at first thought to share Swaziland's sentiments, but it was later clarified that the DEA would not table any rhino horn proposals at CoP17. Despite initial confusion on the DEA's stance on the matter - it confirmed in March that South Africa will not submit a proposal to legalise trade in rhino horn. The recommendations were endorsed by the Inter-departmental Technical Advisory Committee and an Inter-Ministerial Committee appointed to investigate the possibility of legalising commercial international trade in rhino horn - who had decided against it.

Both the possession of rhino horn and the trade in rhino horn, including any derivatives or products thereof, is subject to prior authorization, says the DEA and remains illegal in South Africa.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the conference...

There will probably be a few surprises, at least I hope so............ depending

May those surprises only be positive ones

The upcoming COP17 CITES will be a profound convention for conservation globally, and especially for South Africa.

“In two weeks time, thousands of delegates will converge on South Africa to discuss the impacts of and find solutions to the illicit trade in wildlife at COP17 CITES. This positive development gives added impetus to us to share best practice on combating poaching with our international partners” Molewa says.

The Conference will consider 175 documents – of which 60 are proposals- to amend the list of species subject to CITES trade controls. South Africa has submitted a number of proposals.

The Department of Environmental Affairs has launched an awareness raising campaign around the Conference and encourages all South Africans follow proceedings through the Departmental website as well as the official CITES website here and here.

Minister Molewa has reiterated that the decrease in poaching numbers have been made possible through the successful collaboration with the Security Cluster, communities and the support of the donor community and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s).

She once again expressed gratitude to the donor community both locally and internationally for its ongoing support in fighting rhino poaching. "I once again encourage all South Africans to report any wildlife crime that you are aware of so that action can be taken against the transnational organised criminal syndicates involved.”

Rhino poaching was declared a National Priority Crime in 2014 and the issue continues to receive the highest level of attention from the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), the country’s law-enforcement authorities, and the prosecution service.

The Integrated Strategic Management Approach has a number of key pillars that are addressed within the context of national and international cooperation. The key pillars are compulsory interventions, managing rhino populations, long-term sustainability interventions, and new interventions, within the context of regional and international cooperation.

What can we expect from SA at CoP17



With a huge range of pressing issues to be addressed this year, many concerns are pertinent to South Africa. From pangolins and parrots, to lions, elephants and rhino, it is hoped that there will be enough time to cover all of them in sufficient detail.

CITES is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora which attempts to protect species against over-exploitation through international trade. Referring to global conservation agencies such as IUCN for recommendations, CITES decisions are based on accepted proposals to make amendments to trade regulations on threatened species.

Species are listed by CITES into three Appendices: Appendix I species, in which trade is permitted only in exceptional circumstances such as the one-off sale of ivory in 2008 - which many believe stimulated ivory markets and caused an upsurge in poaching - Appendix II in which trade must be controlled and Appendix III which contains species that are protected in at least one country.

“Although elephant, lion and rhino will be in the public eye at this year’s CoP, essentially all species are important and discussions around plants, fish or the iconic elephant are no less or more important than another,” says Claire Patterson-Abrolat of the Endangered Wildlife Trust.

Since the release of the Great Elephant Census which revealed that savannah elephant numbers across Africa have dropped by a third in seven years due to poaching, it is clear that urgent action is needed to prevent their extinction.

“Elephants and the ivory trade will be front and centre at this CoP. Given the results of the Great Elephant Census, Parties to CITES are going to have to put the politics of listing proposals and discussions aside and focus on urgent measures that have to be adopted to ensure the future viability of Africa’s elephant populations,” says Jason Bell, Director of the Elephant Programme at IFAW.

But South Africa is opposing an IUCN motion passed this weekend at the World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, which urgently requests all governments to shut down their domestic markets for ivory.

“Japan, Namibia and South Africa are desperately pushing for a series of amendments (to Motion 007) but the floor is rejecting them all systematically,” says Wildlands CEO, Andrew Venter. With 91% of IUCN members voting in favour of the motion, it will be very difficult for CITES parties to ignore this consensus at COP 17.

Furthermore by submitting a counter-proposal to the African Elephant Coalition’s CoP 17 submission, which pushes for an Appendix 1 listing for all African elephant populations, South Africa is making it clear that it does not support a ban in domestic ivory trade which many, including the IUCN, believe creates opportunities to launder illegal ivory under the guise of legality.

“We are concerned that CoP17 is likely to be a rerun of the old pattern, with proposals and counter-proposals on legal international ivory trade and related matters, all diverting the attention of Parties from the real issues,” says a statement by WWF.

n contrast, it seems the trade in rhino horn is settled for the moment. The South African Government has confirmed it will not request a lifting of the ban on international trade at this year’s CoP, although Swaziland has done so.

“South Africa is not opposed to trade in rhino horn but was put in a position where it would have been political suicide for it to submit a trade proposal to CoP17. Other than a few economic interests, nearly everyone agreed that it would have been a bad idea,” says Bell.

However, Ian Michler, safari operator and environmental journalist, believes that Swaziland’s proposal for trade in rhino horn “may well be a proxy for South Africa – a testing of the waters. In this way the pro-trade lobby and South Africa gets to see what needs to be done for their own submission at the next CoP.”

Lions are another species marked for attention.

Although South Africa’s lion population is stable, it’s captive lion breeding industry remains a contentious issue and a motion approved last week at the World Conservation Congress calls for South Africa to review legislation and terminate the practice of ‘canned’ hunting and captive lion breeding.

“From a South African perspective, one of the most relevant issues to be discussed at CoP 17 is uplifting lion to Appendix I,” says Andrew Venter. “But moving lion to Appendix I may not stop the captive predator breeding trade. In practise, it may strengthen the industry as CITES encourages captive breeding of Appendix I species as a conservation tool, arguing that this takes the pressure off wild populations.”

Although South Africa has 7 000 lions in captivity, leading global conservation groups do not attribute any conservation value to these.

With estimates of a million illegally trafficked pangolins in the last ten years, the species is the most poached mammal on earth. As a result there appears to be an unanimous agreement amongst pangolin range states to transfer all eight species to an Appendix I listing.

“There are rigorous measures up for debate that would enhance the international response to the trafficking of pangolins and are essential to ensuring the proper implementation the new listings. We strongly support these additional measures and hope that they will also be overwhelmingly endorsed,” says a WWF statement.

Can CITES cope with the illegal wildlife trade?
BY ADAM CRUISE - 12 SEPTEMBER 2016 - DAILY MAVERICK


Photo: A Malaysian wildlife official stands near confiscated elephant ivory tusks from Africa before destroying the ivory, in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia, 14 April 2016. Malaysian authorities destroy 10 tons of seized ivory tusks as part of the country’s progress in combating the ivory trafficking and illegal trade. EPA/FAZRY ISMAIL

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is increasingly expected to control the estimated $19-billion illegal trade in endangered plants and animals. However, a recent paper for the South African Institute for International Affairs think tank notes that CITES is a treaty among nations, established to regulate legal trade, and is neither self-executing nor legally binding. By ADAM CRUISE.

The success of CITES relies on its implementation by its signatories and is badly needed at a time of unprecedented legal and illegal trade, both in terms of volume and scope.

According to Katarzyna Nowak, a Research Associate in Zoology and Entomology at the University of the Free State, the recent and rapid escalation in wildlife crime is not something CITES was necessarily designed to handle in its current form.

A lot has changed since this system was set up in 1975 including many more species now being more threatened. The human population has almost doubled, economies have mushroomed – especially in the Far East – and the world is more inter-connected than ever with trade, both domestic and international, facilitated by the internet and the marketing of products by traders.

The convention must now regulate the international trade of about 35,000 wild species of animals and plants between its 183 member states – nine times the size of its original membership. This regulation works via a system of species classification and permit licensing. Wild species are categorised in Appendices I to III and a permitting system is instituted appropriate to the threat posed to those species by trade. Trade in Appendix II and III species is controlled, while trade in Appendix I species is essentially black-listed.

Nowak, drawing on information available from the CITES website, points out that approximately half the member nations, or parties, of the convention have not enacted laws for implementing the existing CITES system; 17 parties were designated as “priority” in this respect at a meeting earlier this year of the CITES Standing Committee, and 10 of these are in Africa, arguably the chief target of trade missions from around the world.

At its forthcoming Conference of the Parties (CoP17) to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa from late September to early October, Nowak says CITES has an important opportunity to assist its member states – particularly those “priority” countries – to harmonise urgently and possibly also modernise their legislation to fulfill their commitments as signatories to the convention.

These countries tend to have high biodiversity but are relatively less well resourced than those of consumer countries. They face difficulties carrying out accurate scientific findings for a huge range of species and are generally disadvantaged in controlling illegal trade.

One only has to compare the under-resourced customs officers in Mozambique with those in the US to understand that consumer countries need to do more to assist those countries with under-resourced finances and manpower. The CITES Secretariat is well placed to facilitate greater co-operation and address the imbalance.

While Nowak concedes that collaboration between the convention and a range of other intergovernmental bodies is already a CITES resolution and has been growing in momentum, “controlling illegal trade will require this collaboration to be scaled up and expanded while also being open to advice and innovation”.

Already, in documents submitted ahead of the CoP, South Africa is urging CITES to collaborate more closely with the global specialist on organised crime, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, while the European Union and Senegal are recommending that all CITES parties ratify the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the UN Convention against Corruption, as some parties have not yet done so. Nowak also points out that while the convention has agreements with other conventions such as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), to which nine African countries with important populations of migratory species are not yet party.

Along with recommending more stringent penalties for non-compliance, particularly for trade in commodities known to finance conflict, Nowak says the CITES Secretariat must encourage consensus among member parties and be more supportive of majority views. This, she says, would greatly improve outcomes in combating wildlife crime – but the hindrance is that some CITES parties refuse to follow the majority view and may even perceive collective efforts as an attack on their sovereignty.

For example, in an effort to reduce demand for ivory, 29 African countries have united in proposing a comprehensive ban on ivory trade and restrictions on live elephant exports. This total ban is advocated by 70% of African elephant range states, known as the African Elephant Coalition (AEC).

But three elephant range states – South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe – have opted to counter the AEC proposals by promoting the acceptance of a legal ivory trade through the formal establishment of an ivory trade mechanism. Most elephant range states and many other CITES signatories have openly voiced their opposition to further discussion of this mechanism which they view as a distraction to tackling the current elephant poaching crisis.

Elephants in Africa are already “split-listed” between Appendices I and II. This was done to allow sales of stockpiled ivory by several southern African countries while the rest of the continent retained its elephants on Appendix I (no trade). Such split-listing of species, says Nowak, can undermine or evade CITES trade bans.

Recent analyses of these legal one-off ivory sales which CITES sanctioned because of pressure from a minority few show that these sales did nothing to reduce black market activity. In fact, a third of Africa’s elephants have been wiped out in the last seven years.

Matters have come to a head in Honolulu, Hawaii. On Saturday, September 10, world government and NGO representatives voted at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, urging governments to close down their domestic ivory markets.

Domestic ivory sales in most countries are legal. Many experts believe that domestic ivory markets help fuel poaching by stimulating demand and allowing traffickers a cover for their illegal imports and exports.

In response, the IUCN, which has 1,300 members from more than 160 countries, voted in favour of closing domestic markets by an overwhelming majority of 91%.

Nowak believes that if the secretariat supported proposals representing the majority view – that is, the majority of countries on a continent, the majority of species range states, several economic regions – it could boost the convention’s role in combating illegal trade, which will require a concerted and collective effort.

By becoming more decisive and firmer, the secretariat may be able to arrest the drastic decline, not only of Africa’s elephants, but other species – pangolins, sharks and rays, African Grey parrots, rhinos, and cacti – facing the plague of the illegal wildlife trade. DM

Original article: http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/ ... 9j7bY9OLIV

The Battle Over Ivory

When delegates from around the globe arrive at the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), a divisive debate about the trade in elephant ivory is expected to take centre stage.

If proposals submitted to the meeting by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia are adopted, they will clear the way for these countries to sell stockpiled ivory on the international market.

A number of counter-proposals by West, Central and East African countries call for a continued and expanded ban on the export of elephant products and the destruction of existing ivory stockpiles.

Zimbabwe’s Minister of Environment, Water and Climate, Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri, and Namibia’s Minister of Environment and Tourism, Pohamba Shifeta, have published details about their respective governments’ positions which deserve critical analysis.

When it comes to wildlife conservation, both ministers subscribe to a philosophy of so-called ‘sustainable utilisation’. Their approach suggests that wild animals must yield financial profits to earn the right to be protected by people, instead of placing a responsibility on humans to ensure their survival in the face of growing habitat destruction and over-exploitation.

They argue that without financial incentives for rural communities, many of which suffer loss of lives, crops and property as a result of elephants, “the species can be regarded as a liability”. “In the absence of financial security or value from the elephant,” says Muchinguri-Kashiri, “it will be seen quite correctly as a vexatious and omnipresent pest”.

The ministers suggest that allowing trade in ivory would represent the “most effective strategy” to counter this problem. Muchinguri-Kashiri also points to the economic contribution the hunting industry makes towards conservation efforts and the “huge losses” it would suffer if the killing of elephants for trophies were curtailed.

Both ministers overlook the fact that non-extractive wildlife tourism already yields much bigger financial returns than either the potential sale of ivory or the trophy hunting industry. They also ignore persistent reports alleging the misappropriation of funds raised by previous ivory sales.

Suggestions that legalising the world-wide trade in ivory would reduce poaching have been strongly refuted by experts and economists.

The fact that Namibia’s elephant population has grown from “just over 7,500 to over 20,000 at present” during a time when the international trade in ivory is outlawed and Muchinguri-Kashiri’s statement that “at the moment, due to the economic value attached to the elephants, there is a huge incentive for conservation” appear to contradict the two ministers’ own assertions that the animals only have value because of their ivory or that their successful conservation necessarily requires the ivory trade.

Bizarrely, Muchinguri-Kashiri seems to lay the blame for a “local overabundance” of elephants in the Hwange ecosystem resulting in the extinction of “certain bird species” on the elephants themselves, even though she acknowledges the “overabundance” to be the outcome of the “artificial supply of water”, i.e. a matter of conservation management.

Shifeta’s contention that previous CITES-sanctioned sales of stockpiled ivory “were successful in all respect” is far from accurate. Research published this year indicates that when Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and South Africa were allowed sell more than 100 tons of ivory to Japan and China in 2008, illegal ivory smuggling from Africa increased by a staggering 71%. At the time, Japan and China colluded to keep the price of ivory low on the international market while selling it at hugely inflated prices domestically.

It should come as little surprise that over 25 other African countries are vigorously opposing the Southern African proposals. Based on previous experience, additional ivory sales would threaten to push their already highly imperilled elephant populations to the brink of extinction. Muchinguri-Kashiri’s insistence that “the counter proposals essentially infringe upon Zimbabwe’s sovereign right to make decisions over its wildlife resources [...] without interference” rings particularly hollow given this dire threat to elephants in other countries on the continent.

The pro-trade proposals must be seen as especially reckless in the face of new evidence showing that poaching has wiped out 30% of Africa’s remaining savannah elephants between 2007 and 2014, and 65% of its forest elephants between 2002 and 2013.

Claims by the ministers that “ivory can be traded legally, in such a way as to prevent any ivory other than registered legal stocks from entering such legal trade” must be interrogated in the light of proof that government employees have been repeatedly been implicated in stealing ivory from national stockpiles.

In responding to a recent enquiry under the Promotion of Access to Information Act, South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs informed the that the country is currently stockpiling just over 65,000 kilograms of ivory. Of this, an estimated 54,000 kilograms could potentially be sold if CITES were to give the go-ahead. At a market price of, say, US$300 per kilogram, that would yield a mere U$16.2 million.

Do profits of that magnitude really justify risking the survival of the species elsewhere in Africa?

EU puts African elephant in jeopardy

2016-09-24 08:30 - Adam Cruise

The first act of the EU as a full member of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), may well jeopardise the future of African elephants.

At the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) which opens in Johannesburg on Saturday 24 September, the European Union will not vote as individual member states but as a bloc which, according to a decision taken the European Commission on 1st July, means they will oppose a total ban on international trade in ivory. This decision strangely contradicts a resolution by the European Parliament itself on the 15th September to put all elephants on CITES Appendix I.

This decision has been widely denounced by conservation groups, the general public – a petition supporting a global ban on ivory by Avaaz has received nearly 1.3 million signatures – and 70% of Africa’s elephant range states comprising of 29 countries that have come together as the African Elephant Coalition (AEC), who advocate a total ban on ivory.

“It is unacceptable given the current rates of poaching that the EU will not support a ban on ivory trade at the conference in South Africa,” says Dr Rosalind Reeve, senior advisor to Fondation Franz Weber and the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation. “A total ban is essential for the future existence of Africa’s elephants,” she says.

Under CITES, species are assigned to one of three appendices: Appendix I lists species most threatened with extinction in which commercial trade is prohibited. For Appendix II and III species, trade is allowed but regulated according to the level of threat.

Africa’s elephants have been split between Appendix I and Appendix II (four southern African countries). With permission from CITES, Appendix II countries can sell stockpiled ivory, as Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe did, to Japan, in 1999. Another sale by the three countries, joined by South Africa, took place in 2008, this time to China as well as Japan.

According to a 2016 study, these “one-off” legal sales are blamed for stimulating the unprecedented ivory demand in Asia, leading to rampant elephant poaching and illegal trading that, according to a recent survey by the Paul G. Allen funded Great Elephant Census, has seen a third of Africa’s elephants wiped out in the last seven years.

In response to the crisis, the AEC will submit a proposal at CoP17 calling for all Africa’s elephants to be listed under Appendix I. But the EU will oppose this as it favours a continuation of the split-listing which allows for the possibility of a continuation of a trade in ivory.

Many European nations have thriving ivory markets - selling supposedly antique ivory.

“European countries want to protect their own ivory markets and are therefore opposed to an Appendix I listing because it would effectively put an end to further exports from Europe,” says Leonardo Anselmi, director of the Fondation Franz Weber for Southern Europe and Latin America, an organisation that worked closely on the African Elephant Coalition’s Appendix I proposal to CITES. “These often undisclosed international economic trade agreements among European nations always seem to trump genuine conservation measures,” Anselmi says.

However, there are some dissenters among the EU ranks. France and Luxembourg strongly favour an Appendix I listing, and have also closed down their domestic ivory markets.

What's more, according to Daniela Freyer, Co-founder of Pro Wildlife, a German-based advocacy group committed to protecting wildlife and works to ensure the survival of species in their habitat, European Members of Parliament (MEPs) in contrast to the European Commission, “have listened to the European citizens, conservationists and the large majority of African elephant range States by calling for an end to all ivory trade.”

A European Parliament resolution by elected members on European Union strategic objectives for CITES CoP17 taken on the 15th September categorically endorses the AEC proposal to put all elephants on CITES Appendix I.

However, while the elected members of the European Parliament have legislative power they don’t have legislative initiative. In other words, they cannot implement decisions, only recommend them. That power rests with the EU Commission. It is this unelected executive body that ultimately will determine the fate of elephants, and it seems it’s about to fail them.

Supplied by: Conservation Action Trust

Shocking!