Wildlife Trade - CITES Issues

[Lisbeth]

Join the Global March for Elephants and Rhino in your SA city!

- Global conservationists and policymakers meet in South Africa from Saturday to chart a way forward in the fight against escalating wildlife trafficking that could drive some species to extinction.

The plight of Africa's rhino and elephants, targeted for their horns and tusks, is expected to dominate 12 days of talks in Johannesburg on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

Ahead of the 12-day conference South Africans are encouraged to join the Global March for Elephants and Rhinos. People from more than 120 cities across the globe will unite to bring awareness for our most endangered species. Cape Town, Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, Hoedspruit, Limpopo, Johannesburg, Richards Bay and Rustenburg will be in on the action.

We #MarchAgainstExtinction and demand our governments take action to STOP the poaching of elephants and rhinos and END the trade in ivory and rhino horn.

[Lisbeth]

CITESCoP17 opens: SA marches to ban wildlife trade on Heritage Day

South Africa's stance on the trade of certain wildlife species will be heavily scrutinised as the 17th Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora kicks off in Johannesburg.

CoP17 is one of the most important wildlife conferences focused on the protection and monitoring of trade in wildlife.

President Jacob Zuma along with minister Edna Molewa opened the conference, running until 05 October 2016, with some 3 500 delegates in attendance. These include Ministers and government representatives from the member countries, representatives from Inter-Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations, Civil Society and other stakeholders.

During his opening address Zuma stated that South Africa was one of the biggest exporters of biological products to the international market and that regulation of the international trade in wildlife was crucial.


"Our law enforcement agencies continue to work hard to break the chain of wildlife trafficking," Zuma said as he acknowledged the challenges and threats to the environment of illegal trade in wildlife - including poaching which "affects communities, destroys livelihoods and aggravates crime".

"We look forward to the outcomes of this conference, which are science based and for conservation," he said.

As the12-day conference got underway, South Africans joined the Global March for Elephants and Rhinos, with more than 120 cities uniting across the globe shifting the focus on the most endangered species across the planet. The march took place in Cape Town on Friday 23 September, with Durban and Johannesburg all participating on SA Heritage Day 24 September.

Topical issues such as interventions to address the poaching of elephant; the proposed listing of elephant, lion, rosewood species and sharks; as well as the illegal trade in rhino horn and pangolin are on the CITES CoP17 agenda.

South Africa's stance in support of the sale of Ivory stock piles, as well as canned hunting practices will be heavily criticised.

Many have joined the call for an outright ban of Ivory trade. Currently, elephants in Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are classified under Appendix II, thereby facilitating the sale of ivory around the world.

The 10th world government and NGO representatives have voted at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, held earlier in September, urging governments to close down their domestic ivory markets.

Added to this, 54 members from both houses of the US House of Representatives have sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, urging the United States to vocally and strongly support the highest level of protections for African elephants at the conference.

The Department of Environmental Affairs however says the CITES conference is an opportunity for South Africa to showcase its rich biodiversity and successful conservation initiatives based on sustainable-use management practices.

[Lisbeth]

http://conservationaction.co.za/media-a ... COP17 [/b]
BY ADAM CRUISE - 27 SEPTEMBER 2016 - AFRICA GEOGRAPHIC

Yesterday Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe’s recommendation for the adoption of a Decision-Making Mechanism (DMM) for a future trade in ivory was roundly rejected by parties, led by outspoken opponents Burkina Faso, Kenya, Republic of Congo and Chad.

Negotiations over the plight of elephants began in controversial style yesterday at the 17th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), taking place in Johannesburg.

©Janine Avery

A proposal from the Secretariat to extend the mandate to the CITES Standing Committee to continue the debate on the Decision-Making Mechanism failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority.

In 2007, CITES initiated negotiations on a DMM for a process of trade in ivory, which could lead the way towards a reopening of international trade. Debate over the years became protracted and provoked considerable criticism.

The mandate for negotiation was renewed at CITES CoP16 in 2013, and a DMM Working Group established. However, despite extensive debate, no progress has been made to date on establishing such a mechanism.

“These discussions have been going round in circles for nine years without going anywhere,” says Will Travers, President of Born Free, a wild animal and conservation charity, “it’s time to kill this process.”

“If this mandate is not extended, it will die, it will be moribund,” said Jonathan Barzdo, Chair of the Committee discussing the issue. Although the mandate was not extended here this evening, the issue can be revived in the plenary sessions next week, but the mood among the delegations seems to be to swinging toward greater protection of elephants.

“The surge of feeling among African nations we’re seeing here tonight in the rejection of the Decision-Making Mechanism,” says Keith Lindsay, “is a reaction to what they’ve seen happening in their countries – they’ve seen their elephants being wiped out and it’s time to put a stop to it.”

Earlier a report by the CITES Secretariat for the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) disputed the findings of a recent paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which finds a clear link between the legal one-off ivory sales that took place in 2008 and the current poaching crisis that has seen a third of Africa’s elephants wiped out.

The MIKE claim was immediately challenged by a number of CITES member nations as well as conservation NGOs.

Uganda declared the MIKE report flawed, echoed by both Kenya and the NGOs Humane Society International and the Amboseli Trust for Elephants, which suggested that the MIKE analysis lacked transparency, consultation and a necessary peer review to make its claims legitimate, and that the authors of the NBER report had in fact answered MIKE’s criticisms.

“The lesson of the NBER study is inescapable,” says Iris Ho, Program Manager, Wildlife for the Humane Society International, “a legal trade, or even talk of one, is a risk that we cannot afford to take.”

Israel went further with its criticism stating: “The MIKE program is not fulfilling the function it was set up to do.” The overall goal of MIKE, according to the CITES website, is to provide information needed for elephant range states to make appropriate management and enforcement decisions. That MIKE, according to the Israeli delegation, won’t recognise the clear link between the one-off sales and the current poaching crisis hampers efforts to effectively combat the scourge.

There were, however, some nations that welcomed the MIKE report. Speaking on behalf of all SADC countries, South Africa’s Minister for the Environment, Edna Molewa, said they “supported the claim that there is no evidence between the one-off sales and the poaching crisis.”

However, Molewa admitted there was a dramatic spike in poaching in Kruger National Park in the last three years. In 2013 the first elephant in 10 years was poached for its tusks. “This year alone,” she said, “36 have been slaughtered.”

©Janine Avery

The US delegation noted this with concern and pointed out that the increase in poaching was fast approaching the CITES biological criteria of a decline of 50% over three generations, which requires greater protection in the form of a status uplisting for elephants under CITES recommendations.

Currently, elephants in South Africa are classified under Appendix II, which provides for a possibility of a trade in ivory.

An uplisting to Appendix I would provide the highest standard of protection for elephants, and would send a clear message to markets that all commercial ivory trade is prohibited. Currently, elephants in South Africa are classified under Appendix II, thereby facilitating a future one-off sale of ivory around the world.

Patrick Ormondi, head of Kenyan delegation, says, “29 African countries are calling for the highest protection of African elephants, and it seems we are getting much support from other member parties from around the world.”

Read original article: http://africageographic.com/blog/ivory- ... onference/

[Lisbeth]

Future trade in ivory dealt major blow yesterday; Trade in live elephants on agenda for today

[okie]

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 182 countries are Parties to the Convention

My problem with CITES is that it is a useless toothless organisation that DOES NOT protect anything . IMO , it is an organisation that makes rules and regulations over matters , but does not have the power or means to uphold those rules and regulations .

[Flutterby]

Lions Lose at CITES

BREAKING NEWS – PROPOSAL TO UPLIST LIONS TO APPENDIX I FALLS: CITES CoP17 has dealt a devastating blow to African lions, already decimated with only 20,000 lions left in the wild.

Nine African nations (Niger, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria and Togo) wanted to raise protection for lions by uplisting them to Appendix I, the maximum level of protection. The move was intended to end the lion bone trade. Instead, a compromise proposal was hammered together to appease the fierce opposition from lion bone and body part traders and the hunting for entertainment enthusiasts.

Lions remain on CITES Appendix II, but with a “zero annual export quota for bones, bone pieces, products, claws, skeletons, skulls and teeth removed from the wild and traded for commercial purposes.” However, South Africa has been permitted to set its own export quota for the same body parts and products from their captive breeding operations. Trouble is, nobody can tell the difference between wild lion bones and captive bred lion bones. Tragically, it does not include lion skins or parts/derivatives obtained through captive breeding.

ADI (Animal Defenders International) is deeply disappointed and believes this move actually encourages opening markets in lion bone trade. Countries that are not currently trading in lion bones will now want to join the trade.

The decision is in stark contrast to the recent IUCN call for an end to captive bred lion hunting operations, and the recent recognition by the countries with wild lion populations, that the increasing lion bone trade poses a serious risk to the survival of the species in the wild.

Lions desperately need Appendix I protection; canned hunting operations and commercial lion trade is not conservation, but actually fuels illicit trade. ADI strongly opposes canned hunting, trophy hunting, and all trade in live lions or their parts and derivatives. We urge all ADI supporters to take up this issue and take forward the battle to save the world’s lions.

[Flutterby]

EU Fails to Lend Necessary Support to the African Elephant Coalition

Elephants and the ivory trade are a contentious subject at CITES CoP17. The European Union has said it does not support a proposal to give elephants more protections.

By Katarzyna Nowak and Keith Lindsay

The European Union (EU) – a regional economic integration organization of 28 member states – became the 181st party to CITES in July 2015. This month became the first time the EU votes as a block at a Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the major wildlife trade treaty, the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

This 17th CoP provides an opportunity for the EU to show support and solidarity for another union of countries: the African Union (AU), which recently developed a common, coordinated strategy to combat illegal wildlife trade. However, the EU are dropping the ball.

The EU itself has in recent years embarked on an expensive effort to restore large mammals throughout the continent in an effort dubbed “Re-wilding Europe”. They are trying to rebuild their ecosystems trophic level by trophic level. In the meantime, three out of four African regions still inhabited by megafauna have united to take preventative actions to their continent’s defaunation, caused by threats including international wildlife trade.

The African Elephant Coalition (AEC) now comprises 30 countries (most recently Angola) – 27 elephant range States and three non-range State members. Its mission is to have “a viable and healthy elephant population free of threats from international ivory trade.”

Elephants have been split across two CITES Appendices – I and II – since 1997 and 2000 when four southern African countries – Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe achieved the lower Appendix II listing for the purpose of experimental sales of their ivory stockpiles to the Far East. These stockpile sales were a major factor in the upsurge of elephant poaching since 2008.

At this CoP, the AEC have been presenting a suite of proposals to better safeguard elephants, declining across the continent because of illegal killing for their ivory. One of these proposals advances the case for transfer of all African elephants to CITES Appendix I, the strictest level of protection prohibiting trade. (See: “Breaking: Pro-Ivory Trade Country’s Change of Heart Upends Elephant Debate“)

The AEC has support from a range of CITES parties including countries as diverse as China, Costa Rica, France, Israel, and the United States. On October 3, the AEC need the backing of the EU block vote, which would help provide the two-thirds majority required for an Appendix I uplisting.

Despite overwhelming evidence presented by the AEC for an Appendix I listing, the indications are that the EU will fail to support them and condemn the AEC to a future re-wilding project of their own – one that they are unlikely to ever afford.

Katarzyna Nowak is a Research Associate in Zoology at the University of the Free State, Qwaqwa, South Africa, and Keith Lindsay is a collaborating researcher with the Amboseli Trust for Elephants, Kenya.

[Lisbeth]

Trouble is, nobody can tell the difference between wild lion bones and captive bred lion bones. Tragically, it does not include lion skins or parts/derivatives obtained through captive breeding.

Sounds like a bad joke

[Lisbeth]

What kind of interest/reason can the EU have for not supporting the AEC

[Lisbeth]

Swaziland's rhino horn trade proposal overwhelmingly rejected at CITES CoP17

Parties to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) have voted overwhelmingly to protect rhinos by rejecting a proposal to legalize the rhino horn trade. The proposal submitted by Swaziland to legalize rhino horn trade was defeated 100-26 with 17 abstentions.

Over the past decade, nearly 6 000 rhinos have been killed for their horns - primarily in South Africa, where 5 098 were poached between 2005 and 2015 to supply a lucrative black market.

Proponents of legal trade argue that they can tightly control the trade by limiting it solely to horn legally taken from living rhinos and legitimate stockpiles, and claim they will use the revenue to support anti-poaching.

But WildAid and other conservation groups have warned that legitimizing the use of rhino horn by promoting trade can massively increase consumer demand in Asia for a product that is falsely claimed to cure cancer, hangovers and other illnesses.

WildAid CEO Peter Knights said of the vote: "Today, the Parties to CITES have overwhelmingly voted the right way on this issue. Far from protecting rhinos, a legal trade in rhino horn would have simply provided a mechanism for laundering yet more horn from poached rhinos into the trade. Demand reduction efforts in consumer nations, combined with improved enforcement in rhino range states, have a far better chance of reversing the rhino poaching crisis."

WildAid also opposes "cultured" or bioengineered rhino horn because it risks perpetuating myths of rhino horn's medicinal potency in Vietnam and China while making the product more socially desirable.

While this is a victory for the Rhinos, the move to have the status of Lions moved from Appendix II to Appendix I was mooted - with many conservationists saying this will unfortunately stimulate the trade in lion bones as a false medicinal practice while indirectly perpetuating the canned lion industry within South Africa.