The latest round of negotiations on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species has left little doubt that the South must fight for its rights, or else the North will continue to act as big brother, reports Anju Sharma from Harare
In a favour of a lesser good
The less fortunate have had their say, and elephants must pay their way to conservation. Three southern African nations -Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia -have been given the go-ahead to trade in elephant products at the 10th Conference of Parties (COP) of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which concluded on June 20 in Harare, Zimbabwe. While the decision indicated significant shifts in environmental policies, it also left people in the protectionist camp high and dry -and weeping with frustration. The vote was taken by secret ballot amidst accusations that Western environmental groups were threatening poor countries to conform to their viewpoint else face sanctions or withdrawal of aid. While secret ballot was used only once at the last COP, this time round it was resorted to a dozen times -speaking of the lack of confidence in open dialogue. In fact, over the years, CITES has become a battleground of sorts between the North and the South. While groups like the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) voiced concern over lack of transparency of process at the convention, developing countries like Zimbabwe, who had insisted on secrecy in the vote on ivory trade, reminded them that the ballot was an essential tool of democracy in the West. The quibbling and the accusations called into %testion the effectiveness of the convention (see box: An unconventional solution). The divide between the North and the South was apparent at the conference, with poorer countries suggesting that the rich wanted to keep them underdeveloped and force their version of 'sustainable development' on them. For most countries of the South, the issdes had more than facevalue, and the decision to allow strictly controlled international trade in ivory was a big moral victory.
Pressure tactics
The consensus on allowing restricted trade in ivory
was confirmed by a secret ballot, and angeredjhe
protectionist groups, which had been trying to 4m-
twist nations which were in favour of lifting the ban. The
secret ballot also met with considerable opposition. But the
issue had become sensitive - with considerable pressure on
countries to comply with the viewpoint of the richer nations
- necessitating a secret ballot.
Two views were presented by non-governmental organisations (NGOS) at the CITEs battleground. One view is supported
by the 'greenies' from the us, UK and Australia, which believe
that species can be saved only if there is total protection. The
other is represented mostly by groups from developing countries, which believe that every species must pay its way to survive, and that poor countries - which so far have had to bear the cost of conservation - must benefit from the species
through sustainable use of their natural resources. While government delegates did the actual voting inside the two committee rooms, local and western NGOS set up camp in the lobby of the venue - the Sheraton in Harare - flooding delegates
with literature and free advice to push their point of view. At
the centre of the debate was the African elephant, with
Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia pushing for placing
the species in Appendix II,
and the 'Green Shield' opposing the proposal.
Zimbabwean President
Robert Mugabe set the tone
of the debate in his opening
address at, the conference.
"Every species must pay its
way," he said, pointing out
that conserving the elephant
was costing Zimbabwe heavily. Millions of dollars were
being spent in pumping
underground water for
wildlife and mobilising the
army, the police and national park rangers to guard animals
against poachers. The annual costs for guarding and for equipment to protect elephants worked out to over $ 400 per sq km.
Tlk other view was voiced by well-known paleontologist
RichLard Leakey at a reception hosted by the Species Survival
Network, a group of protectionist NGOS including the
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Royal Society for
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The statement said it was "a
sorry world" in which animals were expected to pay their way.
Leakey attacked Mugabe's statement, while claiming that he
was proud to be called an 'ellie-hugger'.
Meanwhile, African countries in favour of the ban were
threatened by groups from the us. The HSUS is already trying to
persuade the us government to withdraw aid from the
Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous
Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe, and there were rumours;
that the African states which have opposed the lifting of the
ban have been promised additional aid for their stand. The
three countries which wanted the ban lifted asked for a secret
ballot, so that countries may vote without fear from the 'bullying' nations who use trade sanctions to push their point of view. "We have been told by
of sister countries our many
that they can vote in our
favour only by secret ballot,
since they have been threatened that aid to their countries will be cut off if they vote against the ban," said
Chen Chimutengwende,
Zimbabwean Minister for
Environment and Tourism.
The threats, he said, have so
far come only from Western NGOS.
Strangely, the secret ballot was opposed by groups
like Greenpeace, who said it
was against the convention's commitment to transparency
(see box: Who is the bigger bully?). "It is skpr
ising that groups from democratic countries are against the secret ballot, When
it is the only way of
ensuring that countries vote the way they want to," said
Chimutengwende.
While the 'ellie-huggers' were totally
killing of elephants on 'moral
grounds', others who were opposed pointed out that neither the exporting coun tries nor
importing countries like Japan,
adopted in 19
have foolproof methods of
checking illegal
trade in ivory. Fears were raised that the
India joined t
lifting of the ban may have repercussions
tion is to regu
for elephant populations in other coun
that effective
tries in Africa, as
also for the Asian elephant, providing poachers an
opportunity
communities.
for laundering ivory obtained illegally.
Those in favour of lifting the ban said this
ed by trade.
was an excuse
for not facing up to the
principles of sustainable
development and
white rhino,
rigorous measures for conservation. "We
can wait for another 20 years and still the
could become
other
range states will not get themselves
ers 2,300 spe
organised and start
managing their elephant populations properly," said
Luckson Masule, a community chief from
make subject
Botswana.
"Why should we suffer for their
required in co
mismanagement?"
The Conf
Finally, an amended version of the
proposal, drawn up by a
working group
chaired by Norway, received the necessary
two-thirds majority from the 128 countries
participating in the convention. The
aamendments were considered necessary to
ensure control over illegal trade
and poaching in other elephant range states
with smaller elephant populations.
According to these amend-
ments, the three nations will be
allowed export of sport hunting
trophies for non-commercial
purposes, and export of live elephants to appropriate and
acceptable destinations for the
time being. There will be no
trade in ivory products, however, for the next 21 months, after
which an experimental quota
will be allocated to each country
(25.3 tonnes for Botswana, 13.8
tonnes for Namibia, and 20
tonnes for Zimbabwe), subject
to approval from the working
group.
The will only be countries allowed to trade with Japan,
provided that there are effective
trade controls in place. The standing committee can halt trade
if it feels that there is an escalation in illegal hunting and
resumption of illicit trade in elephant products. Meanwhile,
other countries with existing stockpiles
The Indian delegation to CITEs strongly opposed the listing of the
some NGOS - that they sell their ivory
to donor countries or agencies. "We are
looking for sustainable trade
gered Asian elephant
big step by finally upholding the principles of sustainable
International trade in ivory and poaching
development. It gives us
hope that we will be able to preserve
the our resources for generations to come," he added at
clusion ofthe conference.
The African elephant was listed in Appendix I Of CITES as a
species threatened with extinction in 1989. But populations of
elephant in these countries have grown since then - currently placed at around 150,000. An excess population has led to destruction of the home range of the species, as well as conflict between humans and elephants (see graph: Competing for resources).
Moreover, since the ban was introduced, large stockpiles
of ivory have built up - some confiscated, some from natural
mortality of the elephants - and these countries want to use
the funds from sale ofsuch ivory for conservation, anti-poaching activities and rural development. Each of them expects to
earn between us $ 4-5 million from the sale of their stockpiles.
The tale of ivory trade
of
ivory will have to register the
Hunted down
Ivory exports from Africa
first peaked
amounts at the earliest, to prevent it
Poaching of
tuskers has reduced
in the late 19th century and early 20th
from
getting into the illegal trade, once
elephant population in India
century, coinciding with the colonisalegal trade resumes. One
amendment
tion of Africa by Europeans and -the
also states that the money
accruing
rise of big game hunting. The second
from the sale of
stockpiles will be managed
through a board of trustees,
and lasted till the late 1980s, fuelled by
including the
governments, donors
a demand for ivory from markets in
and the CITES Secretariat,,set up in each
Europe, the us, and East Asia, especially Japan. According to one estimate,
money
is used to enhance conservation, monitoring, capacity building
and about 80 per cent of those in East
and community-based
programmes.
Africa, were eliminated in this period.
"This clause
questions the integrity of
In 1977, CITES placed the African
the range states," said the
delegation elephant in Appendix ii to regulate
from Nigeria. But
Botswana, Namibia
trade in ivory. In 1985, they put a
and Zimbabwe considered
this a far
SO,,,c,: Vivek Menon, 1997, A God in Distress, Asian
quota
system to tighten controls.
better proposal than the one offered by
Elephant Conservation Centre
While legal ivory trade came down as a
result of these measures, illegal trade continued. Many
countries adopted domestic legislation to stop the import
of ivory in 1989, the year Kenya publicly burned 13 tonnes
of ivory.
Finally, at the 7th cop on CITES in Lausanne, Switzerland,
in 1989, the African elephant was placed in Appendix I. But a
special compromise was worked out - the Somalia
Amendment explicitly noted that not all elephant populations
qualified for placement in Appendix I. It established specific
criteria for the transfer of stable or increasing populations
back to Appendix ii. A special panel of experts was appointed
to look into future cases.
At the 8th cop in Kvoto, Japan, in 1992, five countries -
Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia - proposed bringing the African elephant back into Appendix II.
The panel found that Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe
,Wet the criteria for transfer of their elephant populations to
Appendix ii. Despite these findings, the proposal was not
accepted by a majority of nations. At the 9th CITES meet in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida, USA, South Africa placed the proposal
once more, this time asking for trade in only non-ivory products from Kruger National Park, consisting mainly of hide.
Sudan'also sought one-off disposal of nearly 50 tonnes of
ivory, in government custody since 1988. But the proposals
did not have the support of the majority of the African range
states and were withdrawn.
Since the ban in 1989, TRAFFIC has recorded over 4,100 incidents of illicit ivory movement from 40 countries. Customs
seizures have identified Taiwan, Japan, China, Hong Kong,
South Korea, Singapore and Thailand among final destinations
for ivory. Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, the Central African
Republic, Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria,
S6uth Wfrica, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Zimbabwe still
alloLw domestic trade in ivory, which is not controlled under
CITES, which addresses only international trade.
The illegal trade in ivory and the increase in poaching has
been central to the debate on the proposals of the southern
African countries. India has supported a complete ban on
trade in ivory, since there has been a greater international
demand for Indian ivory than for African. In legalising international trade in ivory, illegal trade - dependent on poaching
- is also likely to be set off, affecting the Asian species. With a
much smaller population and a low male-female ratio, the
Asian elephant is the more vulnerable of the two species (see
box: The endangered Asian elephant). Scientific methods being
developed for distinguishing between legally and illegally
acquired ivory are not foolproof, and are expensive.
The logistics of conservation
Almost 80 per cent of the elephant range in Africa lies outside protected areas. Human-elephant conflicts are high, particularly in southern and central Africa where both the populations are high (see graph: Competing for
resources). The conflicts are serious but more localised in areas
where there are a smaller number of elephants in isolated
patches of high human density or where the human density is
low but shared resources like water are scarce. Zimbabwe
alone has 65,000 elephants against an estimated carrying
capacity of 30,000. Botswana has over 79,000 and Namibia
more than 7,000 elephants.
The relationship is further complicated in areas of cultivation - pastoralists in the Savannah tolerate elephants but
farmers in areas with higher rainfall and intense cultivation do
not, since they damage crops. Given a daily intake of food of
about 230 kg, elephants can cause a lot of damage. As a World
Wide Fund For Nature report (Conserving Africa's Elephants:
Current issues and priorities for action) points out, apart from
the loss of food and productivity, there are also social costs -
such as the loss of education of children who are afraid to walk
to school and the extra effort put in by women to avoid elephants while collecting fuelwood and water.
Deterrents such as fences, thunder flashes, lights and gunshots have been tried and failed. Most wildlife managers in
Africa now believe that a long-term solution lies in encouraging landuse strategies to minimise conflict situations, and
ensuring that where human and elephant populations do
overlap, that people derive tangible benefits from their presence. "The use it or lose it approach may not be popular in
some conservation circles, but a more forgiving attitude
towards wildlife'Is a luxury most Africans simply cannot
afford," says WWF International campaigners.
One way that the people can benefit, of course, is from
tourism revenues. In Kenya, tourism is already the single
biggest source of foreign exchange. But so far, it is largely the
central government and the private sector which have benefited most from tourism
rather than local communities. Pointing out that
elephant management is
costly, and that extensive
assista*e from outside
donors has been; assared
but is not forthcoming,
governments and local
NGOS say that consumptive
use of elephants for trophy
hunting and through ivory
exports is the only way to
raise money (see box: A
clean argument).
Big game or trophy
hunting is already a means
of generating income in
Cameroon, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Botswana plans to
reopen elephant trophy hunting and the issue is under consideration in Congo, Gabon and Mozambique. The countries register their annual trophy hunting quota with the CITES Secretariat and the ivory from these animals can be exported
and imported legally for non-commercial use, provided it is
accompanied by the CITES documentation, and there are no
stricter domestic measures in the importing country.
In Namibia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, national legislation
allows for some of the revenue from trophy hunting to return
to the local communities. In Tanzania, a licence to shoot an
elephant costs us $4,000, while in Zimbabwe, a single elephant
hunt can cost us $20,000. The number of elephants shot varies
- in Tanzania, 154 were shot between 1988 and 1992, out of
a national population of about 56,000. In Zimbabwe, the
annual quota is set at about 200 animals.
More than 57 per cent of the revenue generated from the
CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe comes from elephant trophy hunting.
These revenues are used for community development needs.
Licence fees from trophy hunting in Zimbabwe go to the government for further conservation work, and sport hunting
itself provides local employment. In other countries, the
major share earned from trophy hunting does go to the central government and to private individuals, but a recent study
in Tanzania demonstrated that earnings from the sport were
even more evenly spread over the country elephants range
than fees from non-consumptive uses such as tourism. In
some instances, trophy hunting has been merged with problem elephant control.
Whaling dealing
A similar problem was encountered
with regard to whaling. Five proposals for placing three species of whales
from Appendix I to Appendix it were
submitted by Japan and Norway.
All were rejected. There was also a
,separate proposal from Japan, asking
the cop to review the relationship
Of CITES with the International
Whaling Commission, which was
also rejected.
The International Whaling
Commission (rwc), recognised as the
global authority for regulation of
whaling, was established in 1948, to
implement the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling. A moratorium on commercial whaling was passed
by the iwc in 1981, and a Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
was established in 1994. The rwc: maintains zero quotas for all
member countries, until the implementation of its revised
management scheme (Rms), which would grant quotas after a
control mechanism has been put in place.
But members of the High North Alliance, a Norwegian
NGO, claim that the anti-whaling nations - namely the USA,
UK, Australia and New Zealand - are delaying work on the
Rms. At present, they say, work on the Rms has come to a complete stop and that it is unlikely that commercial whaling will
ever be allowed.
The whaling industry in the past was
driven by a demand for whale oil, and
operations were carried out by the UK, USA,
the Netherlands, New Zealand and
Australia. With demand for whale oil
being taken over by cheaper vegetable oils,
these countries have no plans to resume
whaling. The other whaling countries use
whale as a food source. The Bvc moratorium has allocated quotas for "aboriginal
subsistence whaling" to the Russian
Federation, Greenland, and the Alaskan
Inuit.
By a resolution passed in 1979, CITES
chose to follow the management measures
suggested by the rwc, and all whale species
were placed on Appendix I. Pro-wbaling
countries are unhappy with this state of
affairs, claiming that the iwc is dominated
by a group of nations that have declared
themselves in opposition to commercial
utilisation of whales in any form whatsoever - irrespective of whether it is sustainable or not. "By basing its decisions on those of the IWC, CITES will be endorsing a policy where myths, cultural preferences and the popularity of
certain animals in urban public opinion means more than biological and ecological sites and scientific assessment," say
members of the High North Alliance. "As a result, the credibility of CITES as a conservation body will be severely impaired."
The NGO claims that the chairperson of the iwc scientific committee, Phil Hammond of the UK, resigned in protest against the contempt with which the recommendations of the committee were treated.
The research of the committee
showed that some whales stocks are
abundant. Whaling nations point at
the hypocritical stand taken by some
anti-whaling nations. The current
chairman of the iwc, Peter
Bridgewater from Australia, reportedly said that there was no reason
"why such large and beautiful animals should be hunted for meat and for other products available from other sources." But Bridgewater heads the
Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which culls
about 3 million kangaroos every year. Australia is campaign-
ing to increase exports of its kangaroo products, and has
protested strongly against a ban on import of such products in
the US.
Japan, Norway, Peru and the former Soviet Union had
lodged objections to the iwc moratorium adopted in 1982.
Japan later withdrew its objection, but continued to catch
minke whales (Balacnoptera acurostrata) in the Antarctic and
North Pacific Oceans for 'scientific purposes', which is
allowed under the terms of the 1w( . Norway decided
to resume minke whale harvest in 1993. Iceland left the
nvc in 1992 in protest against its not having lived up to its own
intentions. Canada left in 1982, and is not contemplating
rejoining, despite the fact that its aboriginal population in the
North West Territory has resurned catching Greenland
whales.
Meanwhile, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway and Russia
have been threatened with economic sanctions by the L2@ on a
number of occasions. Organisations such as Greenpeace have
threatened to "hit where it hurts most", by persuading
importers to boycott Norvyegian goods, and by pressurising
the ITS government to impose trade sanctions. At the 10th cop,
once again, five proposals for listing three species of whale in
Appendix ii, submitted by Japan and Norway, were opposed
by NGOS who said that they would result in illegal meat being
laundered into legal trade.
Once again, in question are the mechanisms for controlling illegal trade, especially in Japan, where illegally obtained
whale meat is often passed off as a 'bvcatch'. Norway claims to
have a well developed database on the DNA of whales, but
whether this could serve to develop viable methods to distinguish between meat of whales listed in Appendix it from the
meat of a species on Appendix i remains a moot point.
How effective is CITES?
Almost the same controversies surrounded the proposal
from South Africa to lift the ban in exports of the Southern White Rhinoceros, which was also rejected by
the cop-10. South Africa, home to the largest population of
White Rhinos, wanted a zero quota initiaAy, until a trading
system with appropriate controls is set up to prevent lioandering of illegal products. fhe proposal pointed OLIt that the
trade ban has not been responsible for the increase in rhino
numbers - the population in South Africa has grown from 20
to more than 7,500 only because of effective protection and
management. Since the trade ban in 1977, the African Black
Rhino and the three Asianspecies have declined dramatically,
and poaching continues today (see box: Under siege: the
rhino). Between 1970 and 1993, more than 95 per cent of the
world's Black rhinoceroses disappeared and populations of
Javan and Surnatran rhinos are on the brink of extinction. In
India, poaching has decimated the population of the Greater
One-Horned Rhinoceros in recent years, despite measures to
protect the population, concentrated in Assam (see table:
Dwindling population).
The major immediate threat for all species of rhinos today
is use of the rhino horn in traditional Chinese medicine, and
for manufacturing traditional dagger handles in Yemen and
Oman. Rhino conservation in both Africa and Asia comes at a
very high cost - as much as $1000-1500 per sq km. The bulk
of this expenditure has been borne by the governments or private sector management authorities. Continuing this pendi
ture is one of the major problems facing conservation departments in Africa. Many conservationists feel that the only way
to curtail rhino poaching is to work with the practitioners of
Chinese traditional medicine. Two major workshops with traditional medicine communities from China have already been
conducted.
At the 9th CITES meeting, South Africa forwarded a proposal to have its population of White Rhinoceroses moved
from Appendix I to Appendix ii,. It also wanted live rhinos listed for sale and for hunting trophies. Because most of the
southern African populations live on private land, these countries want rhino horn trade legalised.
"The private sector plays an increasingly important role in rhino conservation - it already owns more than 20
per cent of the nation's stock," says
Michael Tsas-Roffes, a conservation
economist from South Africa. "By
expanding markets for rhino products, such as skins and eventually
horn, incentives to reinvest profits in
conservation will be greatly increased."
Meanwhile, South Africa's proposal has been strongly opposed by the
Indian delegation, headed by S C Dey.
It circulated a declaration signed by
about 250 members of Indian
Parliament, calling upon governments
participating in the cop to "forcefully
and publicly oppose" any proposal
for the legalisation of trade in rhino
horn, as this would provide an opportunity to poachers in India to pass
off horns from Indian rhinos into the
legal route (see report, 'No horn,
please', page 13).
Among other issues discussed at CITES which drew attention was the proposal from Finland, Bulgaria and Jordan to
move all Asian and European populations of brown bear
(Ursus arctos) from Appendix it to Appendix I. The proposal
on th'e brown bear was rejected on the grounds that most populations do not meet the necessary criterion, and that there
was a healthy population of the species. Jn countries like
Spain, France, Greece, and Italy the
brown bear has been threatened by
habitat destruction and illegal killing
animals, but the culprit
of problem
once again is not trade, it was maintained. "The most recent information
available does not confirm that international trade in bear parts is causing a
decline in their populations," said officials from TRAFFIC. The gall bladder of
the brown bear is used in traditional Chinese medicine.
A similar problem is faced with
regard to the Royal Bengal Tiger,
which has been poached heavily in
recent years. The bones of the animal
are used in traditional Chinese medicines. Despite efforts by the government of India and NGOS like the World
Wide Fund For Nature-India to protect the species, the tiger is endangered
and will remain so as long as illegal
trade continues (see box: Troubled tiger). But TRAFFIC cautions countries
against looking on CITES as a panacea
from poaching. National agencies are responsible for enforcement of anti-poaching measures and efforts against illicit
trade, it says.
In view of this admitted limitation of CITES in enforcing
what has been agreed by consensus by parties to the conven
tion, what, if any, has been the achievement of CITES?
As far as endangered species in India
and international trade is concerned, it is
apparent that CITES has been ineffective
in controlling illegal trade in the Royal
Bengal Tiger, the Greater One-horned
Rhino and the Asian elephant.
Populations of all three species are dwindling and the situation is alarming.
Unfortunately, there has been no evaluation of CITES even 20 years after it came
into being. Important questions remain
unanswered. Has, for instance, the imposition of a ban on trade in endangered
species brought down their international
prices~ Going by the figures on illegal
trade and poaching, CITES has only managed to drive trade underground and it is
still thriving. Countries continue to lose
their precious wildlife heritage. Those The last stand;-rileRoyal Bengal Tiger is at the mercy of poachers - which have little say or do not figure in terms of buying or selling of animal products are strapped for resources for conservation. So is CITES no more than a where the rich and the powerful can ensure that their trade interests are not compromised. Is it a convention where overt consensus is obtained by de~eloped countries like the us and to underhand tactics such as withdrawing realised that the South will not bow to pressure, that it is not or offering aid to developing countries~ Or is it a democratic forum which a country is free to join, an exercise in regulating
trade in species to fund genuine conservation needs whether
forum in the North or the South~ If the developed countries are so
concerned about protecting species even at the cost of
humans, let them fund conservation with no strings attached
and in a disinterested manner. It is time that the North Japan by resorting willing to accept the North's version of what constitutes 'sustainable development'.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.