WILD

Ivory Sell-Off Proposal Raises Concern for African Elephant Herds

The Republic of Tanzania and Zambia have submitted a controversial proposal to CITES, the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species, for a one time sell-off of over 80 tons of ivory.  The 15th CITES conference will convene from March 13-25th in Doha, Qatar and these two countries will need 66% of the 175 country votes in order to proceed.  Some other African countries support lifting the ban on sales, notably South Africa, Namibia and Botswana.

Kenya, the Republic of Congo, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Rwanda and Sierra Leone are offering a counter proposal, calling for a 20 year moratorium on one-off sales and lobbying other countries to join them.  These countries are upset because of the potential implications of the sale -  the elephants don’t follow the borders and the sale could impact these shared elephants populations.  The proposal is seen to have “betrayed the spirit of conservation in the region.”

In the past, permission has been granted for one-off sales.  In 1997, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana were permitted to sell approximately 50 tons of ivory and in 2007, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe were permitted to sell 108 tons of ivory to Japan and China, earning a reported $20 million USD.  The 2007 deal included a 9 year moratorium on future sell-offs, but a loophole in the text allows for countries not involved in the 2007 deal to submit proposals during this time-span.

Tanzania is home to the second largest elephant population in Africa, and has also seen a drastic increase in poaching.   Nearly 50 elephants per month are killed in the Selous Game Reserve, and DNA tracking links these elephants to ivory sold in Japan.  In 1998, studies counted 67,000 elephants in Selous – today the count is 38,000.

The recent increase in poaching can be directly related to the 2007 sell-off, and we know that when the African elephant was placed onto the CITES list (Appendix A which prohibits trade) in 1989, poaching levels dropped significantly across Africa.  The proposal by Tanzania and Zambia includes a de-listing of the African elephant from Appendix I to Appendix II (little to no trade control).  This perhaps is the most threatening and alarming part of the proposal, and if approved could have wide-spread and devastating impacts for elephant herds across Africa.

“This is really the last call for elephants in Africa,” said Bourama Niagate, director of parks and natural reserves in Mali. “The devastating poaching of the 1980s first controlled through CITES is now so prevalent that the African elephant is all but extinct in some countries. This is because limited legal sales were allowed in the recent past providing the perfect cover for illegal trade in poached ivory. If we do not let elephant populations recover over the next 20 years by stopping the trade entirely, there will be no more African elephants outside a few zoological specimens in reserves in southern parts of Africa. Europe needs to do the right thing and back our stance now because it is nearly too late.” (The Independent)

For Tanzania, it is arguably a question of costs.  The country spends on average $75,000 USD each year to keeps its stockpile of seized ivory (12,131 tusks worth approximately $12 million in Asian markets) safe.  The country lobbies that the funds from the sell-off would be used exclusively for conservation and wildlife management.  But, when put into perspective of other economic drives — tourism, primarily for wildlife and wilderness related recreation, brought $1.3 million USD in 2008.  If there were no more elephants or the country became unsafe due to wide-spread poaching, this consistent income would surely diminish.  The option, as implemented Kenya in 1989, is to burn the stockpiles and eliminate the risk of raids and costs of protecting and storing the ivory.

In addition to these political threats, the African elephant faces severe environmental challenges – primarily drought.  Severe drought, such as that seen in Mali this past year, exacerbate the issue of survival for this gentle giants. A succession of drought and years of mismanagement in Kenya’s Amboseli game park had devastating effects last December, when nearly 2/3rds of the park’s wildlife died, including 75% of the zebra population, 98% of the wildebeest population and every elephant under two years old. Drought increases competition for water and has fatal effects on animals like elephants, which will stay away from watering holes crowded with people and livestock.

Like most conservation issues, this one involves politics, economics, environmental changes, cultural differences and relies heavily on international governing bodies to make the ‘right’ decision.  There’s a multitude of information available on this topic, and below I’ve listed just a few resources, in case you’d like to read more.

Environmental News Service, 2 March 2010: Bangkok Ivory Seizure Points Up CITES Elephant Dispute

26 February 2010: Statement by the Secretary-General of CITES on elephants and international trade of ivory

All Africa Online, 22 February 2010: Tanzania: Costs now the main issue in ivory debate

Daily Nation, 19 February 2010: Kenya and Tanzania disagree on ivory trade

Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2010: Security forces accused of poaching elephants, rhinos in Zimbabwe

Daily Nation, 9 February 2010: Kenya seeks US support against ivory trade

Science Magazine, 5 February 2010: Big Battle Brewing Over Elephants at upcoming CITES meeting

The Independent, 26 January 2010:  Britain to oppose sale of stockpiled ivory

The Independent, 25 January 2010: Save the elephant: ivory trading is set to resume

The Times Online, 23 January 2010: Poaching is a retro fashion we can do without

International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, 22 January 2010: African Countries at odds over Ivory Trade

Zambian Wathdog: Namibia backs ivory sale plan of Zambia

Post your Comment here

Comments are the sole responsibility of their authors. WILD is not responsible, nor will be held liable, for blog comments. WILD reserves the right to delete any comment that is abusive, profane, rude, or considered spam.