Wildlife Trade - CITES Issues

[Lisbeth]

6 Key CITES CoP17 decisions you need to know about

The 17th meeting of the UN's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has been meeting in Johannesburg, with ivory, rhinos and parrots on the agenda.

CITES is a global treaty that regulates trade in wild flora and fauna or products derived from them with an aim to ensuring their survival. Over 180 countries are signatories.

Following are some of the key decisions taken in this round of wildlife diplomacy, which began September 24 and ends on Wednesday - and not all of them have gone as expected.
Pangolin

- CITES placed the eight species of pangolin on the convention's "Appendix I," which prohibits any cross-border movement in the animals or their body parts for commercial purposes.

Pangolins are scaly animals with the dubious distinction of being the world's most poached mammal.

Pangolin meat is prized as a delicacy in Asian economies such as Vietnam, while the animal's scales are used in traditional medicines.

African Grey Parrot

- Prized for its ability to imitate human speech, this species also placed on "Appendix I". The African grey parrot is usually bred in captivity and sold as a pet.

High levels or deforestation and increased trafficking for the pet industry have led to the decline of the parrot, which was once widespread across central and western Africa.

Lion

- Global trade in the bones, claws and teeth of wild lions has also been imposed with exemptions for those harvested from captive-bred lions in South Africa.

The decision on lions was a compromise which fell short of the Appendix I listing that some African countries and conservationists were pushing for.

Conservationists fear the legal market from South African captive-raised lions could provide incentives for poachers to "launder" bones taken from wild lions.

Lion bone is highly sought after in Asia for use in traditional medicines and is used as a substitute for the bones of tigers, which are much rarer.

Elephant

- CITES rejected proposals by Namibia and Zimbabwe to sell ivory to raise funds for conservation.

The proposal was staunchly opposed by east African countries such as Kenya, which has sent a message by burning its stockpiles of ivory in April.

A global ban on ivory sales was imposed in 1989 though CITES allowed one-off auctions from southern Africa in 1999 and 2008.

Those opposed to any loosening of the ban say "dirty ivory" can be laundered by poachers and crime syndicates with licit supplies and that it makes ivory socially acceptable.

A proposal to move southern African elephant populations to Appendix I to provide them with extra protection failed.

CITES also recommended that countries with legal domestic ivory markets - which are not regulated by the convention as its remit is cross-border trade - start closing them down because they are seen as contributing to poaching.

Rhinos

A bid by the southern African Kingdom of Swaziland to sell rhino horn to raise money for conservation was defeated. The global ban on the sale of rhino horn, prized in Asia for use in traditional medicine, has been in place since 1977.

Sharks and Rays

CITES members also voted to include the silky shark, three species of thresher sharks and nine species of devil rays in its "Appendix II" listing, which strictly controls trade so that species are not overharvested or threatened.

Devil rays, which resemble their bigger cousins, manta rays, are targeted for their gill plates, which are sold in China for use in a health tonic.

"Largely unregulated fishing is depleting devil ray populations and jeopardizes the significant potential of these animals for tourism," the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society said.

[Lisbeth]

Lions fail to get uplisted at CITES CoP17

CITES CoP17 has dealt what is believed to be a devastating blow to African lions, critically endangered with an estimated 20 000 lions left in the wild.

Nine African nations, namely 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.

However Lions remain on CITES Appendix II 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.”

'A compromise proposal'

The compromise proposal was drafted at CoP17, currently underway in Johannesburg until Wednesday 05 Octoberm is said to be an "attempt to appease the fierce opposition from lion bone and body part traders and the hunting for entertainment enthusiasts".

According to the document prepared by the European Union and Niger in their role as co-Chairs of the Working Group on African Lion, South Africa has been permitted to set its own export quota for the same body parts and products from their captive breeding operations.

'You can't tell the difference between wild or captive bred lion bones'

In response Blood Lions says, ”The 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.”

A shameful and shocking day for South Africa and CITES as they vote against affording lions greater protection. It’s the same old formula: vested political and financial interests win out over conservation and ecological sense. And so the horrors of captive breeding, an activity that benefits a handful of farmers, businessmen, traders and hunters, continues – and so does the Blood Lions global campaign.

ADI responded by says, it 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. 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.”

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.

'Opening markets in lion bone trade'

Blood Lions maintains Lions desperately need Appendix I protection, “Canned hunting operations and commercial lion trade is not conservation, but actually fuels illicit trade.”

Added to the proposal, it states that subject to external funding, the Secretariat shall, in collaboration with African lion range States, the Convention on Migratory Species and IUCN investigate possible mechanisms to develop and support the implementation of joint lion conservation plans and strategies. It must also develop an inventory of African lion populations across its range, as well as develop strategies to reinforce international cooperation on the management of lions by undertaking studies on legal and illegal trade in lions to ascertain the origin and smuggling routes, in collaboration with TRAFFIC - see the full document here

However, in a Conservation Action Trust piece written by Blood Lions Documentary maker Ian Michler, he says, “Contrary to the promotional claims, much of what takes place behind the fences of South Africa’s predator farms adds up to an industry that cannot be sustainable. Those involved won’t see it, and neither will they listen to words of warning because of the lucrative returns they currently make. And government, a rather odd bed-fellow to this constituency, seem to have been seduced by flimsy short-term economic arguments. “

Michler goes on to say that the notion of ‘sustainability’ has become the most overused and consequently meaningless phrase within conservation and wildlife circles.

“Used in equal measure by those that manage responsibly and the abusers of wildlife, it’s hardly surprising then that the predator breeding and canned or captive lion hunting industry is also invoking the term as a way of trying to sanitize what they do.

But how sustainable will it all be when the ‘wildness’ and the thrill has gone?"

[Flutterby]

Some good decisions, some not so good.

[Lisbeth]

Yep!

[Flutterby]

R.I.P. the African Grey parrot

IVO VEGTER 05 OCT 2016 12:17 (SOUTH AFRICA)

After 35 years of failure to protect African Grey parrots by restricting trade, CITES has voted to double down by banning commercial international trade altogether. Meanwhile, it rides roughshod over African nations, and blithely oversteps its mandate by trying to meddle in domestic affairs of member countries.
A few weeks ago, I suggested that African nations should withdraw from CITES. It has become little more than a front for international animal rights lobby groups who wield political power in rich countries, and dictate to African countries from afar. It is the new colonialism, through which rich elites can command and control poor nations.

Now John Scanlon, the secretary-general of CITES, also warns that some African countries may pull out of CITES. “If multiple countries reject the elephant-related provisions, they can trade with each other outside the terms set up by CITES,” he told the media.

Let’s hope so.

Part of the problem is that the public in the rich world is not particularly well-informed on the conservation of African game species. In fact, they are deliberately misinformed by environmentalists and the media, which leads to political pressure to enact policies that do not work, or actively undermine conservation in Africa.

For example, Bagheera calls itself “an education website about endangered species and the efforts to save them”. It was originally created with the aid of Microsoft, whose co-founder, Paul Allen, sponsored the Great Elephant Census, whose unscientific sensationalism about a 30% decrease in elephant numbers I criticised last week. Bagheera describes both the Asian and African elephant as “endangered species”. This is not true. The two aren’t even in the same genus, and the African elephant is not endangered.

In a news article about the divisions at CITES over ivory trade, the BBC published a map which purports to show the status of national elephant populations in Africa. To reinforce the narrative that elephant populations are everywhere in decline, the map uses a near-white colour for countries in which populations are increasing. Unless you have extraordinary eyesight, this deception can only be spotted by adjusting colour levels in a photo editor, which reveals South Africa, Malawi, Kenya, Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger to be countries in which elephant populations are increasing. Here is the same map with the missing colour converted to blue shading to indicate healthy and increasing elephant populations:



The map also fails to indicate stable populations, which may be why it falsely indicates that Namibia has no elephants at all. This kind of misinformation leads people to believe all elephants are endangered, when many populations are healthy and thriving.

So they donate to international animal rights NGOs, which are experts at using sensational headlines, dodgy statistics and emotional manipulation to raise funds. The resulting political power those NGOs wield over foreign politicians should be viewed with great distrust by people who actually have to live with, and conserve, Africa’s animals. When a powerful country like the US, which has no elephants of its own, leads the campaign to reject African proposals on elephant conservation and ivory trade, it would be well to remember that it only does so for parochial political interests, fed misleading propaganda. Voting against the demands of the NGO bloc would expose their delegates to great sound and fury back home.

As expected, foreign countries, together with African states that have failed to protect their own elephants, have ridden roughshod over countries like Namibia and Zimbabwe, who with the support of South Africa and Zambia proposed to sell ivory from legally-held stockpiles. Although these countries have successful elephant management programmes in place, to the extent that some elephants pose a threat to their ecosystems because of overpopulation, the eco-colonialists seem eager to punish them for their success.

In fact, CITES went even further, by adopting a resolution that calls upon all its members to close even their own domestic ivory markets. An international trade agreement, of course, has no business lecturing countries about domestic trade. Japan, rightly, told them to go hang.

The assembled delegates will also vote on a proposal, inexplicably supported by Botswana, to upgrade the healthy elephant populations of southern Africa to Appendix I, which would put the final nail in any legal trade or sustainable use, including hunting. While the vote has yet to be taken at the time of writing, I’m willing to bet the measure will pass.

Ron Thomson, a veteran conservationist and founding member of the True Green Alliance, expressed incredulity at the idea: “How will adding unneeded and unwanted extra protection of southern Africa’s elephant populations help those that are in decline in west Africa? This is not how wildlife management works. Each population has to be managed according to its own merits. And if CITES insists on not allowing southern Africa’s totally safe elephant populations to be managed according to their respective merits, then CITES is forcing the states of southern Africa to mismanage their elephants.”

The problem is that many of the NGOs that wield the money and influence at CITES are not conservation organisations, but animal rights organisations that do not countenance sustainable use of animals.

“It appears to me that the direction that CITES is going in is one where the human rights charter has been burnt in favour of an animal rights and poachers charter,” wrote Eugene Lapointe, former secretary-general of CITES and president of the International Wildlife Management Consortium, in an editorial.

Harbouring an ideological distrust of commercial markets, they haven’t seen a trade ban they don’t like. Some even campaign against eating meat and consider pet ownership to be cruelty to animals.

This may be what sparked the listing of the African Grey parrot on Appendix I. Native to equatorial Africa, the grey parrot is a very popular bird worldwide, because of its longevity, intelligence and ability to mimic human speech. The new listing will prohibit all commercial international trade in wild grey parrots. Presumably, that phrasing means trade in captive-bred parrots will remain legal.

Let’s leave aside the fact that the IUCN Red List entry for the African Grey gives an estimated wild population of “between 560,000 and 12.7-million individuals”. Sorry, but that isn’t an “estimate”. It isn’t even a guess. Not having the foggiest clue how many there are is no basis for evaluating the sustainability of trapping wild birds for the pet trade. The IUCN reckons that 657,000 were exported from range states in the 20 years from 1982 to 2001, with undocumented pre-export mortality estimates inflating the number to a million. This is either a sustainable 7% of the present wild population, or a catastrophic two thirds of it. Who knows?

Besides, 87.5% of exported grey parrots are bred in captivity, according to the Oxpeckers Centre for Investigative Environmental Journalism. South Africa, which has never had a wild population, is the world’s largest exporter by far, accounting for some 80% of the total export market.

What the listing of the African Grey really demonstrates is the failure of the approach CITES takes towards wildlife trade. The bird has been on Appendix II since 1981, which means international trade in the species has been strictly regulated for 35 years. Throughout this time, countries have been subject to export quotas designed to protect local populations in range states. Yet CITES now claims that despite this “protection”, African Grey populations are in decline in 14 of 18 range states.

One of the worst-hit countries is Ghana, where between 90% and 99% of the population has disappeared since 1992. The irony, however, is that throughout this time, a total export ban was in place, and only 35 exports were reported to CITES. Obviously, nobody in Ghana has a handle on the international trade in African Grey parrots.

Across Africa, tens of thousands of parrots have been exported in violation of quotas. Thousands have been exported in violation of total export bans. Thousands more had CITES export permits saying they were captive-bred, but came from countries with no known breeding facilities.

There is an incentive to circumvent CITES rules, because each bird is worth $300 (over R4,000) on the open market. An incentive to break the rules exists even for parrot breeders, because young birds trapped in the wild need less time to mature and can easily be sold on as captive-bred parrots.

For over 35 years, CITES rules have done absolutely nothing to protect wild African Grey parrot populations. They certainly cannot do much against habitat destruction as agriculture expands in Africa, and if 90% to 99% of a population can vanish despite an export ban, it is clear they can’t do much against trade. What CITES can do, however, is deprive Africans of a modest income, and ensure that poaching parrots becomes even more lucrative.

CITES’s most notable successes, the vicuña and crocodilia, were to rescue species from the brink of extinction by encouraging private ownership, husbandry, and trade. Yet spurred on by radical ideologues in the environmental movement, it has kept doubling down on trade restrictions that simply do not work.

By banning or heavily restricting international trade in endangered species, CITES has not saved these species. All it achieved in the last few decades has been to drive illegal trade in flora and fauna up the charts to rival the black markets in drugs, counterfeit money, weapons and humans.

Let’s hear it for trade bans, poachers and smugglers! DM

[Flutterby]

I don't know what to believe or think anymore!

[Lisbeth]

Mr. Ivo know all

Some things are probably true. BUT......

It is easy to criticize the others who are trying their best to make the best decisions for man and animal.

If the single countries are allowed to make their own rules it will be a "Ragnarok" worse than anything seen before.

Also the United Nations are not what it used to be, because each country wants the best for itself with out thinking of the consequences for the others.

The European Union is the same thing. Egocentrismo is the word today and if my neighbour cannot cope with my decisions, it is his fault and who cares

This man has no respect for anyone and anything and is not thinking ahead. I think that he is a contrarian to everybody who does not see things like he does. It is not the first article of Mr. Vegter that I have read. There would be a lot more to say

[Lisbeth]

Joburg market sells illegal wildlife products just down the road from CITES CoP17

This 5-minute raw footage taken at the Faraday Muthi market, in Selby, Johannesburg shows skins and animal parts of endangered species from cheetah, leopard, lion, chimp hands, hyena, pangolin, vulture.

This while just down the road in Sandton, more than 3 500 delegates from 183 member state countries attended the 17th Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora kicks - one of the most important wildlife conferences focused on the protection and monitoring of trade in wildlife.

Yet at this Joburg market, a rather well-known muthi market in fact, the video clearly shows rampant trade in illegal wildlife products, most of which have very specific restrictions attached to trade, if any is even allowed.

The person who took the video and shared it with Blood Lions wishes to remain anonymous, but confirmed the video's authenticity to Traveller24 and that it was taken on Monday 3 October, saying it was "alarming to see so many leopard skins available".

In January this year the Department of Environmental Affairs set provincial leopard trophy hunting quotas at zero for 2016, effectively banning leopard trophy hunting throughout South Africa for a year.

This calls into question the origin of these products, which include Pangolin skin, just moved up to CITES Appendix I as critically endangered. Other illegal products include lion skins and bone as well as endangered vulture species.

https://youtu.be/6rF3C4PCyXs

Traveller24 spoke to Green Scorpions Environmental Management Inspector for Complaints Andrew Mbhalati who is acting head for Green Scorpions head Lawrence Badenhorst at the moment, but he could not confirm if the market was being investigated.

Mbhalati says he would only be able to follow-up on the matter on Monday, when the necessary official Eric Mbela who deals with Biodiversity issues was back in the office.

'We rely on the public to lodge a complaint'

Mbhalati says, “We rely on the public to lodge a complaint, where after the issues are then register and we send the inspectors to investigate further.” He could not confirm that the division actively investigates or patrols well-known markets such as Faraday.

But given that the film was shot on Monday afternoon, it does not appear as if this particular one is being actively monitored.

Ian Michler, the investigative conservationist behind the documentary Blood Lions who has seen the video told Traveller24 that while no official complaint has been laid, Blood Lions would definitely be collecting a full body of information in order to do so.

Michler says, “The striking irony of this is that a mere 15km from where the world has been holding the most important conference on the trade of endangered species is that these products are being traded in a market.

“The video shows everything from lion and vultures and crocodiles and primate hands.”

'Greatest irony and sadness in actual fact'

Michler says that while it is all good and well for the stakeholders to hold intellectual discussions on the endangered species, it highlights how little is actually being done on the ground and exactly why these species are in trouble.

“It is one thing to accord them protection in writing but it is another to enforce those laws entirely which CITES needs to be aware of,” says Michler.

“It is the greatest irony and sadness in actual fact,” says Michler.

When told that the Green Scorpions rely largely on investigating complaints made by the public or organisations who witness the illegal trader Michler says, “This is an indictment on local and national government, the fact that a country of South Africa’s stature when it comes to wildlife cannot get a rudimentary protection force together to carry out their mandate.”

Michler says, “At least give them the capabilities to patrol markets in the heart of the city – because this is what it boils down to, we are not talking about markets that are in the middle of nowhere. These are visible to everyone. It is extremely sad and a very concerning situation – that they don’t have the resources to carry out the most basic regulatory mandate.”

Michler says Blood Lions would be looking at other areas in the CBD as well as try to ascertain who the suppliers to these markets area as part of its official complaint.

NSPCA Wildlife aware of the muthi market

National Council of SPCA spokesperson Isobel Wentzel told Traveller24 that while they are aware of the market it falls out of their domain.

“We don’t have proof on how the animals are killed, it would be about the manner in how they were killed or proof of cruelty. The fact is we don’t know if they were alive when the parts were chopped off.”

However Wentzel says, “Market traders need to be in possession of a wildlife trader permit, which must be regulated as it is issued subject to specific quotas. They need permits even if it’s for traditional medicine.”

Wentzel agreed that all known muthi market across the various provinces need to be checked on, especially to establish proof of origin.

CITES regulates international and not domestic trade

“Conservation enforcement departments have to check if these guys have been issued permits. But its clear some of the species they can’t get permits to trade in”, which is the key issue here according to Wentzel.

While CITES regulates international and not domestic trade, Wentzel says these traders are still accountable as it is illegal to take animals such as pangolin out of the wild, let alone sell them.

“You cannot take animals out of the wild; it must be legally bred in captivity in order to trade some of them.”

Wentzel also suggests that it is unlikely these parts came from animals that died of natural causes.

“If animals die of natural causes a permit needs to be obtained just to keep the horn of rhino for example. Leopard or cheetah skins cannot leave that property unless they have a registered wildlife permit. Curios all have permits for their wildlife items.

"Even if they call it traditional medicine or muthi markets they are not exempted from the law."

[Lisbeth]

Southern Africa’s Wildlife Trade: An analysis of CITES trade in SADC countries

BY PABLO SINOVAS, BECKY PRICE, EMILY KING, FRANCES DAVIS, AMY HINSLEY AND ALYSON PAVITT - 04 OCTOBER 2016 - SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE (SANBI)

Southern Africa is losing protected wild plants and animals at an alarming rate. Between 2005 and 2014, around 18,000 individual species worth US$340-million were legally sold.

This figure, which excludes losses from poaching, was highlighted in a report by the United Nations Environment Programme that flashes a number of warning lights.

Read the full report here:

Sanbi Annual Report 2016.pdf

(5.59 MiB) Downloaded 2058 times

[Lisbeth]

CITES CoP17 – Africa in a nutshell

by Simon Espley

Another CITES Conference of the Parties has concluded, with a mixed bag of results. The sheer volume of press releases and social media commentary can be confusing, even bewildering. And so here is a brief summary of the main decisions that affect African species.

Note:

– CITES appendix I: No legal international trade.

– CITES appendix II: International trade is permitted, subject to issue of export permits by relevant authorities.

Elephants

©David Winch

1. Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa requested the legalisation of international trade in ivory.

Request denied.

2. The Elephant Coalition (29 countries) and Botswana requested that elephants in Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe be up-listed from CITES appendix II to I.

Request denied.

Note that elephants in all other African countries are already on CITES I and that the CITES II listing for the four countries above prohibits international trade in ivory. In effect the trophy hunting of elephants in those four countries and other countries (where the CITES I classification specifically permits hunting) will continue unaffected, as will the sale of live elephants. Elephant trophies may be exported, subject to specific bans already in place by target countries, but ivory may not be traded internationally (domestic sales are permissible).

Rhinos

©Kelly Winkler

Swaziland requested that they be allowed to trade internationally in white rhino horn.

Request denied

Note that white rhinos are listed on CITES II, with an annotation preventing the trade in rhino horn. South Africa permits domestic trade in rhino horn – although there are ongoing legal proceedings in this regard.

Lions

©Janine Avery

Several nations requested the up-listing of lions from CITES appendix II to CITES appendix I, which would kill the growing trade in lion bones and other parts.

Request denied, but no wild lion parts may be traded. Lion parts from captive-bred lions can be traded by South Africa, with that country required to set quotas and report to CITES each year.

In effect this decision entrenches and legitimises the lion breeding programmes in South Africa, and opens up possible channels for the laundering of wild lion parts. Trophy hunting of wild and captive-bred lions continues unaffected.

Pangolins

Request to up-list all pangolins from CITES II to CITES 1 was approved

Grey parrots

Request to up-list grey parrots from CITES II to CITES 1 was approved

This means that no grey parrots (wild or captive-bred) can be traded internationally, but there is no restriction on breeders selling captive-bred grey parrots domestically.

Cheetahs

©David Winch

Request to increase protective measures against the exotic pet trade (cheetahs are already on CITES 1) was approved. States agreed to co-operate more fully, and emphasis was placed on a unified approach for social media platforms.

Sharks and rays

Request made to up-list silky sharks, three species of thresher sharks and nine species of mobula rays to CITES appendix II was approved. This means that trade in these species will now have to be proven to be sustainable.

Parting thoughts

Although these changes provide a few more tools to prevent illegal international trade, they are only as effective as the degree to which the law is respected, applied and enforced. Most trafficking of wildlife happens outside of the law, and I am not convinced that any of these changes will have significant positive effects. Some of them might even drive illegal trade deeper underground than it is currently.

There seems to be an enormous void between CITES and those empowered on the ground to implement effective conservation strategies. What also comes through from social media chatter is a growing sense that CITES is purely an elite United Nations club, of frustration that foreigners with no understanding of the reality on the ground get to make fundamentally important decisions, and that it’s time for Africa to be in charge of its own wildlife management decisions.

(Simon Espley is an African of the digital tribe, a chartered accountant and CEO of Africa Geographic. He travels extensively in Africa, seeking wilderness, real people and elusive birds. The views expressed in his posts are his own. Connect with him on LinkedIn and follow him on Twitter.)