In a favour of a lesser good

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.

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.

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'.