CITES, Friend or Foe?
An estimate of US$8 to $10 billion per annum (Lawson & Vines, 2014) is channeled from the illicit wildlife trade industry in most parts of the world and is still on an increase at an alarming rate, driving worldwide biodiversity and natural ecosystems to the ground and fostering extinction of various species. Illegal wildlife trade, ranking fourth behind drug, gun and human trafficking trades has currently risen to one of the largest black market industries in the world, with ivory ranking as one of the top trade commodities in this sphere (Williams, 2016).
In the years 1890-1900, approximately 3.7 million kg of ivory were traded to the London market alone (Kooten, 2005) with 60000 elephants reaching the European market every year (Blanc et al., 2002). The ivory exports from Africa reached a notable 400% in the years 1850 to 1875 leading to a large deficit in the African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) population (Kooten, 2005). By the 20th century an increase in human populations in parts of West Africa led the African elephants’ confinement to small protected areas which gave the false assumption of overpopulation when an increase in population of this species was starting to exceed the resources these confinements could offer (Kooten, 2005).
Speculation was strife in the 1960s to 70s that commercial trade of ivory and close human interaction with the African elephant was now endangering the species survival (Kooten, 2005) especially in the Ivory Coast (named after the high ivory trade margins) (Fischer, 2005). The species population estimated an alarming drop from 1.2 million to 600,000 within the years 1979 to 1989 (Corn & Fletcher, 1997).
In a bid to conserve the rapidly diminishing African elephant on the verge of extinction, The United Nations’ Convention on International Trade in Endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES) was drafted in 1973 and came into being in 1975 with only ten member states and has significantly risen to 115 member states (Padgett, 1995). Due to a continued rise in the price demand for ivory and poaching, the African elephant was moved to appendix 1 of CITES thus being given the most protected status effectively banning all commercial trade in the species in October 1989 (Padgett,1995). The ban on legal ivory trade was put into effect by the worldwide conservation organisations which included CITES) the African wildlife Fund (AWF) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) which took considerable steps to save the African elephant (Williams, 2016). CITES regulates the import, export or re-export of the species listed in the three appendices under CITES trade on all geographical planes as long as this species dead or alive crosses an international boarder (Padgett, 1995).
This step was opposed by some African countries that included Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa because of their relatively large populations of elephants (Kooten, 2005). Arguing that the rapid decline in the African elephant was not consistent throughout the continent, as when Kenya and Tanzania were experiencing the decimation of the species, the opposite was occurring in the states above. Zimbabwe went on to claim that their elephant population was too high and if left unchecked the elephant would rapidly exceed its carrying capacity posing an environmental threat as well as a physical threat to those people residing in close proximity to them (Hill, 1995).
After the imposition of the worldwide ivory trade ban in 1989 by CITES, the east African and some Northern countries would not acquiesce to reopening the ivory trade to allow the nations that managed their herds efficiently to partake in the sale of elephant products (Hill, 1995). These differences in opinion led to moral and economic conflicts at the next CITES meeting in 1992 held in Kyoto, Japan whereby 35% of range states opposed the international ban on ivory trade which included Zimbabwe. The WWF went on to argue that the developing nations should be able to utilise and gain a profit from their natural resources leading to a war of words between people of different philosophies towards wildlife conservation (Hill, 1995). After their petition to market closely managed herds was declined, Zimbabwe was painted “black and blue” in the Northern press, vehemently accused of conspiring with elephant poachers (Parrish, 1989) and also accusations of over counting the elephant populations were also thrown up by Greenpeace (Contreras, 1991).
Fig1: A herd of elephants at a local river after a long day in the field.
Some Zimbabwean conservational groups including the Zimbabwe National Conservation Trust rose to the occasion, backing the government and supporting the resumption of ivory trade. On the basis of the sustainable utilization of the elephant whilst all proceeds were channeled to rural areas and anti-poaching activities, giving not only a moral but economic argument towards the utilization of the elephant (Hill, 1995). Switzerland was the only state out of Southern Africa that openly supported the Zimbabwe-Botswana argument that supported controlled trade in ivory as a means of the African elephant conservation (Hill, 1995).
After the 1992 CITES meeting, Zimbabwe complained of eco-colonialism and did not appreciate outsiders telling them how to use their natural resources, announcing in July 1992, that 2000 elephants would be shot as a drought relief programme so as to provide meat free of charge to their nation (Hill,1995). Western governments and conservationists however provided money to relocate 1000 elephants to local private ranches and refused to fund the culling operations (Hill, 1995).
Over the years the existing CITES controls have been “partial, confusing and conditional” (Lee et al., 2016) ranking scheme of species ranging from Appendix I, Appendix II and Appendix III (Kooten, 2005). Under appendix I, species banned from international commercial trade; appendix II, species can be traded although permits have to be issued at the discretion of exporting states and appendix III, list species that could be endangered in the future hence cannot be traded (Kooten, 2005). Five Southern African states- Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana, Malawi and South Africa permitted to sell off nearly 50 tons of stockpiled ivory on a one-time basis under the Resolution 3.15 and 5.21 of the CITES treaty due to their large elephant stocks in June 1997 (Kooten, 2005).Regulated domestic markets are also allowed to continue although ivory trade was restricted till 2017; speculation of future sales of stockpiles is strife without clear measures to encourage destruction and CITES has been negotiating a Decision-Making-Mechanism for trade (DMM) hinting the resumption of ivory trade (Lee et al., 2016 ).
This prompted the African Elephant Coalition established in 2008 to submit a suite of five complementary proposals at the CITES meeting to be held in Johannesburg from the 24th of September to the 5th of October, aiming to give a unified message of anti-poaching, anti-trafficking enforcement and lowering the demand for ivory, thus shifting from the “current mixed message” (Lee et al., 2016). Hence the proposals are: 1) Listing all elephant populations under CITES appendix I ; 2) Closure of domestic ivory markets; 3) Destruction management of ivory stockpiles; 4) Ending the DMM for trade in ivory and 5) Restricting the export of live elephants (Lee et al., 2016 ).
This led to the conclusion that elephants are regarded as an important part of the ecosystem and are continuously on the verge of extinction, even after regulatory measures have been instilled. These have managed to salvage the elephant population in several parts of Africa although their blooming population increase also gives rise to the need for a commercial trade in ivory so as to maintain balance in the ecosystem as well as economic growth of a state.
Ethical views support the ban as elephants are regarded as social animals, and such disruptions like removals from their social groups interrupt their wild populations (Gobush et al., 2009), whilst taking into consideration the effects of captivity which include high mortality rates (Clubb et al., 2008; Mason et al.,2009). This prompted the need to install stiffer ivory trade bans so as to conserve the African elephant.
REFERENCES
Blanc, J. J., Thouless, C. R., Hart, J. A., Dublin, H. T., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Craig, G. C., & Barnes, R. F. W. (2003). African elephant status report 2002: An update from the African Elephant database. Occasional paper of the IUCN species survival commission, 29, 304.
Clubb, R. R., Rowcliffe, M., Lee, P., Mar, K. U., Moss, C., & Mason, G. J. (2008). Compromised survivorship in zoo elephants. Science, 322, 1649.
Contreras, J. (1991, November 18). The killing fields. Newsweek, p.118.
Corn, L. M., & Fletcher, S. R. (1997). Congressional Research service report for Congress: African elephant issues CITES and CAMPFIRE, 97-752.
Fischer, F. (2005). Elephants in Cote d’Ivoire- A warning for West African Conservation. Pachydem, 38, 64-75.
Gobush, K., Kerr, B., & Wasser, S. (2009). Genetic relatedness and disrupted social structure in a poached population of African Elephants. Molecular Ecology, 18(4), 722-734.
Hill, K. A. (1995). Conflicts over development and environmental values: the international ivory trade in Zimbabwes Historical context. Environment and History: Zimbabwes special issue, 1(3), 335-349.
Kooten, G. C. (2005). Elephant Economics in the rough: Modelling ivory trade
Lawson, K., & Vine, S. A. (2014). Global impacts of illegal wildlife trade: The costs of crime, insecurity and International Erosion,
Lee, P. C., Lindsay, K., Gobush, K. S., Reeve, R., Hepworth, R., & Lasseau, D. (2016). Conserving Africa’s remaining elephants and ending the threat of ivory trade: the African elephant coalitions five proposals for CITES. Pachyderm, 1-12.
Mason, G. J., Rowcliffe, M., Mar, K. U., Lee, P., Moss, C., & Clubb, R. ( 2009). Fecundity and population viability in female zoo elephants: problems and possible solutions. Animal Welfare, 18, 237–247.
Padgett, B. (1995). The African elephant, Africa and CITES: The next step. Indiana Journal of Global Legal studies, 2(2), 529-552.
Parrish, M. (1989, October 28). Making it pay to conserve. Los Angeles Times.
Williams, J. M. (2016). The convoluted nature of the African ivory trade. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 15, 181-192.
